arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2609.22007

RKHS-Based Inference for Nonlinear Granger Causality via Conditional Centering

Abstract

Granger causality is commonly formulated through linear prediction in vector autoregressive models, limiting its ability to detect nonlinear predictive relationships. We propose a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS)-based test for nonlinear Granger non-causality in conditional mean for nonlinear autoregressive processes. The key idea is a conditional-centering decomposition of the target regression function into an own-history component and an orthogonal component capturing the additional predictive contribution of the potential source history. Non-causality is characterized by the vanishing of the latter component. The own-history component is estimated by kernel ridge regression, and the residuals are embedded in a second RKHS using a conditionally centered kernel. This yields an RKHS-valued residual moment whose squared norm forms the test statistic. We establish a weighted chi-square null limit and consistency against fixed alternatives for the population-centered statistic. An empirically centered version is shown to retain the null limit and enables spectral calibration of critical values and $p$-values without resampling. Simulation studies demonstrate accurate size control and power against nonlinear alternatives, and real-data applications illustrate the usefulness of the method for detecting nonlinear predictive relationships in time series.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yuhan Tian, Adam Waterbury, Marie-Christine Düker. 2026-09-18. RKHS-Based Inference for Nonlinear Granger Causality via Conditional Centering. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22007

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Considerations for the Integration of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Data

As clinical decision-making increasingly moves toward individualized and context-specific treatment recommendations, reliance on any single evidence source, randomized or observational, may be insufficient. Principled integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data, grounded in explicit causal frameworks, offers a path toward evidence that is both internally credible and externally relevant. In this article, we describe distinct objectives for the integration of randomized controlled trials and real-world data and discuss how these objectives shape key design and analytic considerations, illustrating the resulting choices through example estimands. We highlight practical issues that commonly arise in applied settings, including data relevance and curation, cross-source comparability, estimand specification, and sensitivity analysis. We aim for this article to help readers evaluate and implement principled approaches to integrating randomized controlled trials and real-world data in ways that can support more reliable treatment recommendations while maintaining regulatory-grade evidentiary standards.

stat.ME

Validity of MMRM-based hypothesis testing under missing-not-at-random mechanisms

In randomized clinical trials with longitudinal continuous outcomes, missing-not-at-random (MNAR) missingness often motivates conservative alternatives to mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM). Such caution is important for estimation, but estimation and testing need not require identical assumptions. Moreover, overly conservative primary analyses may reduce power, increase required sample size, and raise trial costs. We investigated the validity of MMRM-based testing under the global null of identical longitudinal outcome distributions across groups. Because valid testing minimally requires treatment-effect estimators to converge to the null under the null hypothesis, we investigated sufficient conditions for this property. We introduced a proportional observation condition requiring ratios of observation probabilities relative to a reference group, conditional on the full outcome vector, to be outcome-independent, and showed that, with arbitrary post-baseline visits and monotone missingness, this condition is sufficient for convergence to the null value. The condition allows observation to depend on unobserved outcomes and permits between-group differences in overall observation probabilities through outcome-independent dropout, making it clinically interpretable while accommodating outcome-dependent MNAR missingness. Synthetic and data-based bootstrap simulations showed negligible bias and empirical test sizes near 0.05, including nonmonotone missingness. Thus, MNAR missingness does not by itself imply that a more conservative primary testing procedure is required. This result does not justify treatment-effect estimation under alternatives, which still requires estimand-based interpretation and sensitivity analyses.

stat.ME

Optimized variance estimation under interference and complex experimental designs

Unbiased and consistent variance estimators generally do not exist for design-based treatment effect estimators because experimenters never observe more than one potential outcome for any unit. The problem is exacerbated by interference and complex experimental designs. Experimenters must accept conservative variance estimators in these settings, but they can strive to minimize the conservativeness. In this paper, we show that the task of constructing a minimally conservative variance estimator can be interpreted as an optimization problem that aims to find the lowest estimable upper bound of the true variance given the experimenter's risk preferences and knowledge of the potential outcomes. We characterize the set of admissible bounds in the class of quadratic forms, and we demonstrate that the optimization problem is a convex program for many natural objectives. The resulting variance estimators are guaranteed to be conservative regardless of whether the background knowledge used to construct the bound is correct, but the estimators are less conservative if the provided information is reasonably accurate. Numerical results show that the resulting variance estimators can be considerably less conservative than existing estimators, allowing experimenters to draw more informative inferences about treatment effects.

stat.ME