Researcher profile

Daniela Witten

Daniela Witten contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Revisiting inference after prediction

Recent work has focused on the very common practice of prediction-based inference: that is, (i) using a pre-trained machine learning model to predict an unobserved response variable, and then (ii) conducting inference on the association between that predicted response and some covariates. As pointed out by Wang et al. (2020), applying a standard inferential approach in (ii) does not accurately quantify the association between the unobserved (as opposed to the predicted) response and the covariates. In recent work, Wang et al. (2020) and Angelopoulos et al. (2023) propose corrections to step (ii) in order to enable valid inference on the association between the unobserved response and the covariates. Here, we show that the method proposed by Angelopoulos et al. (2023) successfully controls the type 1 error rate and provides confidence intervals with correct nominal coverage, regardless of the quality of the pre-trained machine learning model used to predict the unobserved response. However, the method proposed by Wang et al. (2020) provides valid inference only under very strong conditions that rarely hold in practice: for instance, if the machine learning model perfectly estimates the true regression function in the study population of interest.

preprint2020arXiv

In Defense of the Indefensible: A Very Naive Approach to High-Dimensional Inference

A great deal of interest has recently focused on conducting inference on the parameters in a high-dimensional linear model. In this paper, we consider a simple and very naïve two-step procedure for this task, in which we (i) fit a lasso model in order to obtain a subset of the variables, and (ii) fit a least squares model on the lasso-selected set. Conventional statistical wisdom tells us that we cannot make use of the standard statistical inference tools for the resulting least squares model (such as confidence intervals and $p$-values), since we peeked at the data twice: once in running the lasso, and again in fitting the least squares model. However, in this paper, we show that under a certain set of assumptions, with high probability, the set of variables selected by the lasso is identical to the one selected by the noiseless lasso and is hence deterministic. Consequently, the naïve two-step approach can yield asymptotically valid inference. We utilize this finding to develop the \emph{naïve confidence interval}, which can be used to draw inference on the regression coefficients of the model selected by the lasso, as well as the \emph{naïve score test}, which can be used to test the hypotheses regarding the full-model regression coefficients.

preprint2020arXiv

Optimal estimation of variance in nonparametric regression with random design

Consider the heteroscedastic nonparametric regression model with random design \begin{align*} Y_i = f(X_i) + V^{1/2}(X_i)\varepsilon_i, \quad i=1,2,\ldots,n, \end{align*} with $f(\cdot)$ and $V(\cdot)$ $α$- and $β$-Hölder smooth, respectively. We show that the minimax rate of estimating $V(\cdot)$ under both local and global squared risks is of the order \begin{align*} n^{-\frac{8αβ}{4αβ+ 2α+ β}} \vee n^{-\frac{2β}{2β+1}}, \end{align*} where $a\vee b := \max\{a,b\}$ for any two real numbers $a,b$. This result extends the fixed design rate $n^{-4α} \vee n^{-2β/(2β+1)}$ derived in Wang et al. [2008] in a non-trivial manner, as indicated by the appearances of both $α$ and $β$ in the first term. In the special case of constant variance, we show that the minimax rate is $n^{-8α/(4α+1)}\vee n^{-1}$ for variance estimation, which further implies the same rate for quadratic functional estimation and thus unifies the minimax rate under the nonparametric regression model with those under the density model and the white noise model. To achieve the minimax rate, we develop a U-statistic-based local polynomial estimator and a lower bound that is constructed over a specified distribution family of randomness designed for both $\varepsilon_i$ and $X_i$.