arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2608.10592

Duality and Error for Predictively Oriented Inference

Abstract

Predictively oriented (PrO) inference quantifies uncertainty by selecting a distribution over model parameters to optimize a scoring rule applied to the induced predictive distribution, together with a divergence penalty from a reference distribution. By applying the scoring rule after averaging model densities, PrO inference targets predictive performance, accounting for model misspecification. We focus on the logarithmic score with general $\phi$-divergence regularization. Our contributions are twofold. First, we derive a finite-dimensional dual formulation of PrO inference. For $n$ observations, the dual problem has $n+1$ variables. We establish zero-duality-gap criteria and optimality conditions that relate the primal and dual solutions. When primal and dual solutions exist, these conditions yield a semi-analytical representation of the PrO posterior and certificates for assessing the accuracy of numerical solutions. For Kullback--Leibler regularization, the posterior has an exponential form. Second, we derive a finite-sample excess predictive-risk bound for approximate PrO posteriors that separates sampling fluctuation, approximation under a divergence budget, regularization, and numerical optimization error. The result applies even when the benchmark predictive risk is not attained by any probability distribution over the model parameters having finite divergence from the reference distribution. We use an exactly solvable categorical example to show that predictive-risk convergence can imply convergence to a unique predictive distribution even though the parameter distributions have no weak limit on the original parameter space. The example also shows that different $\phi$-divergences can require different regularization schedules. We conclude with a misspecified Gaussian location-mixture example that illustrates the dual computation, primal recovery, and numerical accuracy checks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Aurya Javeed, Drew P. Kouri, Teresa Portone, Rebekah White. 2026-08-11. Duality and Error for Predictively Oriented Inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10592

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME