Showing 1–14 of 14 results for author: Gao, L L

Thinning a Wishart Random Matrix

Authors: Ameer Dharamshi, Anna Neufeld, Lucy L. Gao, Daniela Witten, Jacob Bien

Abstract: Recent work has explored data thinning, a generalization of sample splitting that involves decomposing a (possibly matrix-valued) random variable into independent components. In the special case of a $n \times p$ random matrix with independent and identically distributed $N_p(μ, Σ)$ rows, Dharamshi et al. (2024a) provides a comprehensive analysis of the settings in which thinning is or is not poss… ▽ More Recent work has explored data thinning, a generalization of sample splitting that involves decomposing a (possibly matrix-valued) random variable into independent components. In the special case of a $n \times p$ random matrix with independent and identically distributed $N_p(μ, Σ)$ rows, Dharamshi et al. (2024a) provides a comprehensive analysis of the settings in which thinning is or is not possible: briefly, if $Σ$ is unknown, then one can thin provided that $n>1$. However, in some situations a data analyst may not have direct access to the data itself. For example, to preserve individuals' privacy, a data bank may provide only summary statistics such as the sample mean and sample covariance matrix. While the sample mean follows a Gaussian distribution, the sample covariance follows (up to scaling) a Wishart distribution, for which no thinning strategies have yet been proposed. In this note, we fill this gap: we show that it is possible to generate two independent data matrices with independent $N_p(μ, Σ)$ rows, based only on the sample mean and sample covariance matrix. These independent data matrices can either be used directly within a train-test paradigm, or can be used to derive independent summary statistics. Furthermore, they can be recombined to yield the original sample mean and sample covariance. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Decomposing Gaussians with Unknown Covariance

Authors: Ameer Dharamshi, Anna Neufeld, Lucy L. Gao, Jacob Bien, Daniela Witten

Abstract: Common workflows in machine learning and statistics rely on the ability to partition the information in a data set into independent portions. Recent work has shown that this may be possible even when conventional sample splitting is not (e.g., when the number of samples $n=1$, or when observations are not independent and identically distributed). However, the approaches that are currently availabl… ▽ More Common workflows in machine learning and statistics rely on the ability to partition the information in a data set into independent portions. Recent work has shown that this may be possible even when conventional sample splitting is not (e.g., when the number of samples $n=1$, or when observations are not independent and identically distributed). However, the approaches that are currently available to decompose multivariate Gaussian data require knowledge of the covariance matrix. In many important problems (such as in spatial or longitudinal data analysis, and graphical modeling), the covariance matrix may be unknown and even of primary interest. Thus, in this work we develop new approaches to decompose Gaussians with unknown covariance. First, we present a general algorithm that encompasses all previous decomposition approaches for Gaussian data as special cases, and can further handle the case of an unknown covariance. It yields a new and more flexible alternative to sample splitting when $n>1$. When $n=1$, we prove that it is impossible to partition the information in a multivariate Gaussian into independent portions without knowing the covariance matrix. Thus, we use the general algorithm to decompose a single multivariate Gaussian with unknown covariance into dependent parts with tractable conditional distributions, and demonstrate their use for inference and validation. The proposed decomposition strategy extends naturally to Gaussian processes. In simulation and on electroencephalography data, we apply these decompositions to the tasks of model selection and post-selection inference in settings where alternative strategies are unavailable. △ Less

Submitted 17 September, 2024; originally announced September 2024.

Discussion of "Data fission: splitting a single data point"

Authors: Anna Neufeld, Ameer Dharamshi, Lucy L. Gao, Daniela Witten, Jacob Bien

Abstract: Leiner et al. [2023] introduce an important generalization of sample splitting, which they call data fission. They consider two cases of data fission: P1 fission and P2 fission. While P1 fission is extremely useful and easy to use, Leiner et al. [2023] provide P1 fission operations only for the Gaussian and the Poisson distributions. They provide little guidance on how to apply P2 fission operatio… ▽ More Leiner et al. [2023] introduce an important generalization of sample splitting, which they call data fission. They consider two cases of data fission: P1 fission and P2 fission. While P1 fission is extremely useful and easy to use, Leiner et al. [2023] provide P1 fission operations only for the Gaussian and the Poisson distributions. They provide little guidance on how to apply P2 fission operations in practice, leaving the reader unsure of how to apply data fission outside of the Gaussian and Poisson settings. In this discussion, we describe how our own work provides P1 fission operations in a wide variety of families and offers insight into when P1 fission is possible. We also provide guidance on how to actually apply P2 fission in practice, with a special focus on logistic regression. Finally, we interpret P2 fission as a remedy for distributional misspecification when carrying out P1 fission operations. △ Less

Submitted 4 September, 2024; originally announced September 2024.

Comments: 18 pages, 1 figure

Testing for a difference in means of a single feature after clustering

Authors: Yiqun T. Chen, Lucy L. Gao

Abstract: For many applications, it is critical to interpret and validate groups of observations obtained via clustering. A common validation approach involves testing differences in feature means between observations in two estimated clusters. In this setting, classical hypothesis tests lead to an inflated Type I error rate. To overcome this problem, we propose a new test for the difference in means in a s… ▽ More For many applications, it is critical to interpret and validate groups of observations obtained via clustering. A common validation approach involves testing differences in feature means between observations in two estimated clusters. In this setting, classical hypothesis tests lead to an inflated Type I error rate. To overcome this problem, we propose a new test for the difference in means in a single feature between a pair of clusters obtained using hierarchical or $k$-means clustering. The test based on the proposed $p$-value controls the selective Type I error rate in finite samples and can be efficiently computed. We further illustrate the validity and power of our proposal in simulation and demonstrate its use on single-cell RNA-sequencing data. △ Less

Submitted 27 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

MSC Class: 62H30; 62H15; 62P10

Negative binomial count splitting for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Authors: Anna Neufeld, Joshua Popp, Lucy L. Gao, Alexis Battle, Daniela Witten

Abstract: The analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data often involves fitting a latent variable model to learn a low-dimensional representation for the cells. Validating such a model poses a major challenge. If we could sequence the same set of cells twice, we could use one dataset to fit a latent variable model and the other to validate it. In reality, we cannot sequence the same set of cell… ▽ More The analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data often involves fitting a latent variable model to learn a low-dimensional representation for the cells. Validating such a model poses a major challenge. If we could sequence the same set of cells twice, we could use one dataset to fit a latent variable model and the other to validate it. In reality, we cannot sequence the same set of cells twice. Poisson count splitting was recently proposed as a way to work backwards from a single observed Poisson data matrix to obtain independent Poisson training and test matrices that could have arisen from two independent sequencing experiments conducted on the same set of cells. However, the Poisson count splitting approach requires that the original data are exactly Poisson distributed: in the presence of any overdispersion, the resulting training and test datasets are not independent. In this paper, we introduce negative binomial count splitting, which extends Poisson count splitting to the more flexible negative binomial setting. Given an $n \times p$ dataset from a negative binomial distribution, we use Dirichlet-multinomial sampling to create two or more independent $n \times p$ negative binomial datasets. We show that this procedure outperforms Poisson count splitting in simulation, and apply it to validate clusters of kidney cells from a human fetal cell atlas. △ Less

Submitted 24 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Generalized Data Thinning Using Sufficient Statistics

Authors: Ameer Dharamshi, Anna Neufeld, Keshav Motwani, Lucy L. Gao, Daniela Witten, Jacob Bien

Abstract: Our goal is to develop a general strategy to decompose a random variable $X$ into multiple independent random variables, without sacrificing any information about unknown parameters. A recent paper showed that for some well-known natural exponential families, $X$ can be "thinned" into independent random variables $X^{(1)}, \ldots, X^{(K)}$, such that $X = \sum_{k=1}^K X^{(k)}$. These independent r… ▽ More Our goal is to develop a general strategy to decompose a random variable $X$ into multiple independent random variables, without sacrificing any information about unknown parameters. A recent paper showed that for some well-known natural exponential families, $X$ can be "thinned" into independent random variables $X^{(1)}, \ldots, X^{(K)}$, such that $X = \sum_{k=1}^K X^{(k)}$. These independent random variables can then be used for various model validation and inference tasks, including in contexts where traditional sample splitting fails. In this paper, we generalize their procedure by relaxing this summation requirement and simply asking that some known function of the independent random variables exactly reconstruct $X$. This generalization of the procedure serves two purposes. First, it greatly expands the families of distributions for which thinning can be performed. Second, it unifies sample splitting and data thinning, which on the surface seem to be very different, as applications of the same principle. This shared principle is sufficiency. We use this insight to perform generalized thinning operations for a diverse set of families. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2023; v1 submitted 22 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Necessary and sufficient conditions for multiple objective optimal regression designs

Authors: Lucy L. Gao, Jane J. Ye, Shangzhi Zeng, Julie Zhou

Abstract: We typically construct optimal designs based on a single objective function. To better capture the breadth of an experiment's goals, we could instead construct a multiple objective optimal design based on multiple objective functions. While algorithms have been developed to find multi-objective optimal designs (e.g. efficiency-constrained and maximin optimal designs), it is far less clear how to v… ▽ More We typically construct optimal designs based on a single objective function. To better capture the breadth of an experiment's goals, we could instead construct a multiple objective optimal design based on multiple objective functions. While algorithms have been developed to find multi-objective optimal designs (e.g. efficiency-constrained and maximin optimal designs), it is far less clear how to verify the optimality of a solution obtained from an algorithm. In this paper, we provide theoretical results characterizing optimality for efficiency-constrained and maximin optimal designs on a discrete design space. We demonstrate how to use our results in conjunction with linear programming algorithms to verify optimality. △ Less

Submitted 8 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Data thinning for convolution-closed distributions

Authors: Anna Neufeld, Ameer Dharamshi, Lucy L. Gao, Daniela Witten

Abstract: We propose data thinning, an approach for splitting an observation into two or more independent parts that sum to the original observation, and that follow the same distribution as the original observation, up to a (known) scaling of a parameter. This very general proposal is applicable to any convolution-closed distribution, a class that includes the Gaussian, Poisson, negative binomial, gamma, a… ▽ More We propose data thinning, an approach for splitting an observation into two or more independent parts that sum to the original observation, and that follow the same distribution as the original observation, up to a (known) scaling of a parameter. This very general proposal is applicable to any convolution-closed distribution, a class that includes the Gaussian, Poisson, negative binomial, gamma, and binomial distributions, among others. Data thinning has a number of applications to model selection, evaluation, and inference. For instance, cross-validation via data thinning provides an attractive alternative to the usual approach of cross-validation via sample splitting, especially in settings in which the latter is not applicable. In simulations and in an application to single-cell RNA-sequencing data, we show that data thinning can be used to validate the results of unsupervised learning approaches, such as k-means clustering and principal components analysis, for which traditional sample splitting is unattractive or unavailable. △ Less

Submitted 20 November, 2023; v1 submitted 17 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Inference after latent variable estimation for single-cell RNA sequencing data

Authors: Anna Neufeld, Lucy L. Gao, Joshua Popp, Alexis Battle, Daniela Witten

Abstract: In the analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing data, researchers often characterize the variation between cells by estimating a latent variable, such as cell type or pseudotime, representing some aspect of the individual cell's state. They then test each gene for association with the estimated latent variable. If the same data are used for both of these steps, then standard methods for computing p-… ▽ More In the analysis of single-cell RNA sequencing data, researchers often characterize the variation between cells by estimating a latent variable, such as cell type or pseudotime, representing some aspect of the individual cell's state. They then test each gene for association with the estimated latent variable. If the same data are used for both of these steps, then standard methods for computing p-values and confidence intervals in the second step will fail to achieve statistical guarantees such as Type 1 error control. Furthermore, approaches such as sample splitting that can be applied to solve similar problems in other settings are not applicable in this context. In this paper, we introduce count splitting, a flexible framework that allows us to carry out valid inference in this setting, for virtually any latent variable estimation technique and inference approach, under a Poisson assumption. We demonstrate the Type 1 error control and power of count splitting in a simulation study, and apply count splitting to a dataset of pluripotent stem cells differentiating to cardiomyocytes. △ Less

Submitted 18 October, 2022; v1 submitted 1 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Comments: 43 pages, 7 figures

Tree-Values: selective inference for regression trees

Authors: Anna C. Neufeld, Lucy L. Gao, Daniela M. Witten

Abstract: We consider conducting inference on the output of the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) [Breiman et al., 1984] algorithm. A naive approach to inference that does not account for the fact that the tree was estimated from the data will not achieve standard guarantees, such as Type 1 error rate control and nominal coverage. Thus, we propose a selective inference framework for conducting infer… ▽ More We consider conducting inference on the output of the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) [Breiman et al., 1984] algorithm. A naive approach to inference that does not account for the fact that the tree was estimated from the data will not achieve standard guarantees, such as Type 1 error rate control and nominal coverage. Thus, we propose a selective inference framework for conducting inference on a fitted CART tree. In a nutshell, we condition on the fact that the tree was estimated from the data. We propose a test for the difference in the mean response between a pair of terminal nodes that controls the selective Type 1 error rate, and a confidence interval for the mean response within a single terminal node that attains the nominal selective coverage. Efficient algorithms for computing the necessary conditioning sets are provided. We apply these methods in simulation and to a dataset involving the association between portion control interventions and caloric intake. △ Less

Submitted 17 October, 2022; v1 submitted 14 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

Selective Inference for Hierarchical Clustering

Authors: Lucy L. Gao, Jacob Bien, Daniela Witten

Abstract: Classical tests for a difference in means control the type I error rate when the groups are defined a priori. However, when the groups are instead defined via clustering, then applying a classical test yields an extremely inflated type I error rate. Notably, this problem persists even if two separate and independent data sets are used to define the groups and to test for a difference in their mean… ▽ More Classical tests for a difference in means control the type I error rate when the groups are defined a priori. However, when the groups are instead defined via clustering, then applying a classical test yields an extremely inflated type I error rate. Notably, this problem persists even if two separate and independent data sets are used to define the groups and to test for a difference in their means. To address this problem, in this paper, we propose a selective inference approach to test for a difference in means between two clusters. Our procedure controls the selective type I error rate by accounting for the fact that the choice of null hypothesis was made based on the data. We describe how to efficiently compute exact p-values for clusters obtained using agglomerative hierarchical clustering with many commonly-used linkages. We apply our method to simulated data and to single-cell RNA-sequencing data. △ Less

Submitted 31 October, 2022; v1 submitted 4 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: Final accepted version

Minimax D-optimal designs for multivariate regression models with multi-factors

Authors: Lucy L. Gao, Julie Zhou

Abstract: In multi-response regression models, the error covariance matrix is never known in practice. Thus, there is a need for optimal designs which are robust against possible misspecification of the error covariance matrix. In this paper, we approximate the error covariance matrix with a neighbourhood of covariance matrices, in order to define minimax D-optimal designs which are robust against small dep… ▽ More In multi-response regression models, the error covariance matrix is never known in practice. Thus, there is a need for optimal designs which are robust against possible misspecification of the error covariance matrix. In this paper, we approximate the error covariance matrix with a neighbourhood of covariance matrices, in order to define minimax D-optimal designs which are robust against small departures from an assumed error covariance matrix. It is well known that the optimization problems associated with robust designs are non-convex, which makes it challenging to construct robust designs analytically or numerically, even for one-response regression models. We show that the objective function for the minimax D-optimal design is a difference of two convex functions. This leads us to develop a flexible algorithm for computing minimax D-optimal designs, which can be applied to any multi-response model with a discrete design space. We also derive several theoretical results for minimax D-optimal designs, including scale invariance and reflection symmetry. △ Less

Submitted 1 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Testing for Association in Multi-View Network Data

Authors: Lucy L. Gao, Daniela Witten, Jacob Bien

Abstract: In this paper, we consider data consisting of multiple networks, each comprised of a different edge set on a common set of nodes. Many models have been proposed for the analysis of such multi-view network data under the assumption that the data views are closely related. In this paper, we provide tools for evaluating this assumption. In particular, we ask: given two networks that each follow a sto… ▽ More In this paper, we consider data consisting of multiple networks, each comprised of a different edge set on a common set of nodes. Many models have been proposed for the analysis of such multi-view network data under the assumption that the data views are closely related. In this paper, we provide tools for evaluating this assumption. In particular, we ask: given two networks that each follow a stochastic block model, is there an association between the latent community memberships of the nodes in the two networks? To answer this question, we extend the stochastic block model for a single network view to the two-view setting, and develop a new hypothesis test for the null hypothesis that the latent community memberships in the two data views are independent. We apply our test to protein-protein interaction data from the HINT database (Das and Hint, 2012). We find evidence of a weak association between the latent community memberships of proteins defined with respect to binary interaction data and the latent community memberships of proteins defined with respect to co-complex association data. We also extend this proposal to the setting of a network with node covariates. △ Less

Submitted 22 March, 2021; v1 submitted 25 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Are Clusterings of Multiple Data Views Independent?

Authors: Lucy L. Gao, Jacob Bien, Daniela Witten

Abstract: In the Pioneer 100 (P100) Wellness Project (Price and others, 2017), multiple types of data are collected on a single set of healthy participants at multiple timepoints in order to characterize and optimize wellness. One way to do this is to identify clusters, or subgroups, among the participants, and then to tailor personalized health recommendations to each subgroup. It is tempting to cluster th… ▽ More In the Pioneer 100 (P100) Wellness Project (Price and others, 2017), multiple types of data are collected on a single set of healthy participants at multiple timepoints in order to characterize and optimize wellness. One way to do this is to identify clusters, or subgroups, among the participants, and then to tailor personalized health recommendations to each subgroup. It is tempting to cluster the participants using all of the data types and timepoints, in order to fully exploit the available information. However, clustering the participants based on multiple data views implicitly assumes that a single underlying clustering of the participants is shared across all data views. If this assumption does not hold, then clustering the participants using multiple data views may lead to spurious results. In this paper, we seek to evaluate the assumption that there is some underlying relationship among the clusterings from the different data views, by asking the question: are the clusters within each data view dependent or independent? We develop a new test for answering this question, which we then apply to clinical, proteomic, and metabolomic data, across two distinct timepoints, from the P100 study. We find that while the subgroups of the participants defined with respect to any single data type seem to be dependent across time, the clustering among the participants based on one data type (e.g. proteomic data) appears not to be associated with the clustering based on another data type (e.g. clinical data). △ Less

Submitted 12 January, 2019; originally announced January 2019.

Comments: 20 pages, 4 figures, 1 table (main text); 15 pages, 9 figures (supplement)