Explore the vast range of titles available.

We propose a model-free framework for sensitivity analysis of individual treatment effects (ITEs), building upon ideas from conformal inference. For any unit, our procedure reports the 0-value, a number which quantifies the minimum strength of confounding needed to explain away the evidence for ITE. Our approach rests on the reliable predictive inference of counterfactuals and ITEs in situations where the training data are confounded. Under the marginal sensitivity model of [Z. Tan, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101, 1619-1637 (2006)], we characterize the shift between the distribution of the observations and that of the counterfactuals. We first develop a general method for predictive inference of test samples from a shifted distribution; we then leverage this to construct covariate-dependent prediction sets for counterfactuals. No matter the value of the shift, these prediction sets (resp. approximately) achieve marginal coverage if the propensity score is known exactly (resp. estimated). We describe a distinct procedure also attaining coverage, however, conditional on the training data. In the latter case, we prove a sharpness result showing that for certain classes of prediction problems, the prediction intervals cannot possibly be tightened. We verify the validity and performance of the methods via simulation studies and apply them to analyze real datasets.

Many domains of science have developed complex simulations to describe phenomena of interest. While these simulations provide high-fidelity models, they are poorly suited for inference and lead to challenging inverse problems. We review the rapidly developing field of simulation-based inference and identify the forces giving additional momentum to the field. Finally, we describe how the frontier is expanding so that a broad audience can appreciate the profound influence these developments may have on science.

Statistical inference in psychology has traditionally relied heavily on p-value significance testing. This approach to drawing conclusions from data, however, has been widely criticized, and two types of remedies have been advocated. The first proposal is to supplement p values with complementary measures of evidence, such as effect sizes. The second is to replace inference with Bayesian measures of evidence, such as the Bayes factor. The authors provide a practical comparison of p values, effect sizes, and default Bayes factors as measures of statistical evidence, using 855 recently published t tests in psychology. The comparison yields two main results. First, although p values and default Bayes factors almost always agree about what hypothesis is better supported by the data, the measures often disagree about the strength of this support; for 70% of the data sets for which the p value falls between .01 and .05, the default Bayes factor indicates that the evidence is only anecdotal. Second, effect sizes can provide additional evidence to p values and default Bayes factors. The authors conclude that the Bayesian approach is comparatively prudent, preventing researchers from overestimating the evidence in favor of an effect.

Statistical models and methods for determinantal point processes (DPPs) seem largely unexplored. We demonstrate that DPPs provide useful models for the description of spatial point pattern data sets where nearby points repel each other. Such data are usually modelled by Gibbs point processes, where the likelihood and moment expressions are intractable and simulations are time consuming. We exploit the appealing probabilistic properties of DPPs to develop parametric models, where the likelihood and moment expressions can be easily evaluated and realizations can be quickly simulated. We discuss how statistical inference is conducted by using the likelihood or moment properties of DPP models, and we provide freely available software for simulation and statistical inference.

The popularity of machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL) and artificial intelligence (AI) has risen sharply in recent years. Despite this spike in popularity, the inner workings of ML and DL algorithms are often perceived as opaque, and their relationship to classical data analysis tools remains debated. Although it is often assumed that ML and DL excel primarily at making predictions, ML and DL can also be used for analytical tasks traditionally addressed with statistical models. Moreover, most recent discussions and reviews on ML focus mainly on DL, failing to synthesise the wealth of ML algorithms with different advantages and general principles. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the field of ML and DL, starting by summarizing its historical developments, existing algorithm families, differences to traditional statistical tools, and universal ML principles. We then discuss why and when ML and DL models excel at prediction tasks and where they could offer alternatives to traditional statistical methods for inference, highlighting current and emerging applications for ecological problems. Finally, we summarize emerging trends such as scientific and causal ML, explainable AI, and responsible AI that may significantly impact ecological data analysis in the future. We conclude that ML and DL are powerful new tools for predictive modelling and data analysis. The superior performance of ML and DL algorithms compared to statistical models can be explained by their higher flexibility and automatic data‐dependent complexity optimization. However, their use for causal inference is still disputed as the focus of ML and DL methods on predictions creates challenges for the interpretation of these models. Nevertheless, we expect ML and DL to become an indispensable tool in ecology and evolution, comparable to other traditional statistical tools.

The concept of missing at random is central in the literature on statistical analysis with missing data. In general, inference using incomplete data should be based not only on observed data values but should also take account of the pattern of missing values. However, it is often said that if data are missing at random, valid inference using likelihood approaches (including Bayesian) can be obtained ignoring the missingness mechanism. Unfortunately, the term \"missing at random\" has been used inconsistently and not always clearly; there has also been a lack of clarity around the meaning of \"valid inference using likelihood\". These issues have created potential for confusion about the exact conditions under which the missingness mechanism can be ignored, and perhaps fed confusion around the meaning of \"analysis ignoring the missingness mechanism\". Here we provide standardised precise definitions of \"missing at random\" and \"missing completely at random\", in order to promote unification of the theory. Using these definitions we clarify the conditions that suffice for \"valid inference\" to be obtained under a variety of inferential paradigms.

We make only one point in this article. Every quantitative study must be able to answer the question: what is your estimand? The estimand is the target quantity—the purpose of the statistical analysis. Much attention is already placed on how to do estimation; a similar degree of care should be given to defining the thing we are estimating. We advocate that authors state the central quantity of each analysis—the theoretical estimand—in precise terms that exist outside of any statistical model. In our framework, researchers do three things: (1) set a theoretical estimand, clearly connecting this quantity to theory; (2) link to an empirical estimand, which is informative about the theoretical estimand under some identification assumptions; and (3) learn from data. Adding precise estimands to research practice expands the space of theoretical questions, clarifies how evidence can speak to those questions, and unlocks new tools for estimation. By grounding all three steps in a precise statement of the target quantity, our framework connects statistical evidence to theory.

Inspired by sample splitting and the reusable holdout introduced in the field of differential privacy, we consider selective inference with a randomized response. We discuss two major advantages of using a randomized response for model selection. First, the selectively valid tests are more powerful after randomized selection. Second, it allows consistent estimation and weak convergence of selective inference procedures. Under independent sampling, we prove a selective (or privatized) central limit theorem that transfers procedures valid under asymptotic normality without selection to their corresponding selective counterparts. This allows selective inference in nonparametric settings. Finally, we propose a framework of inference after combining multiple randomized selection procedures. We focus on the classical asymptotic setting, leaving the interesting high-dimensional asymptotic questions for future work.

We present a communication-efficient surrogate likelihood (CSL) framework for solving distributed statistical inference problems. CSL provides a communication-efficient surrogate to the global likelihood that can be used for low-dimensional estimation, high-dimensional regularized estimation, and Bayesian inference. For low-dimensional estimation, CSL provably improves upon naive averaging schemes and facilitates the construction of confidence intervals. For high-dimensional regularized estimation, CSL leads to a minimax-optimal estimator with controlled communication cost. For Bayesian inference, CSL can be used to form a communication-efficient quasi-posterior distribution that converges to the true posterior. This quasi-posterior procedure significantly improves the computational efficiency of Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms even in a nondistributed setting. We present both theoretical analysis and experiments to explore the properties of the CSL approximation. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Many modern statistical applications involve inference for complex stochastic models, where it is easy to simulate from the models, but impossible to calculate likelihoods. Approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) is a method of inference for such models. It replaces calculation of the likelihood by a step which involves simulating artificial data for different parameter values, and comparing summary statistics of the simulated data with summary statistics of the observed data. Here we show how to construct appropriate summary statistics for ABC in a semi-automatic manner. We aim for summary statistics which will enable inference about certain parameters of interest to be as accurate as possible. Theoretical results show that optimal summary statistics are the posterior means of the parameters. Although these cannot be calculated analytically, we use an extra stage of simulation to estimate how the posterior means vary as a function of the data; and we then use these estimates of our summary statistics within ABC. Empirical results show that our approach is a robust method for choosing summary statistics that can result in substantially more accurate ABC analyses than the ad hoc choices of summary statistics that have been proposed in the literature. We also demonstrate advantages over two alternative methods of simulation-based inference.