We suggest general methods to construct asymptotically uniformly valid confidence intervals post-model-selection. The constructions are based on principles recently proposed by (2013). In particular the candidate models used can be misspecified, the target of inference is model-specific, and coverage is guaranteed for any data-driven model selection procedure. After developing a general theory we apply our methods to practically important situations where the candidate set of models, from which a working model is selected, consists of fixed design homoskedastic or heteroskedastic linear models, or of binary regression models with general link functions. In an extensive simulation study, we find that the proposed confidence intervals perform remarkably well, even when compared to existing methods that are tailored only for specific model selection procedures.
Several new methods have been proposed for performing valid inference after model selection. An older method is sampling splitting: use part of the data for model selection and part for inference. In this paper we revisit sample splitting combined with the bootstrap (or the Normal approximation). We show that this leads to a simple, assumption-free approach to inference and we establish results on the accuracy of the method. In fact, we find new bounds on the accuracy of the bootstrap and the Normal approximation for general nonlinear parameters with increasing dimension which we then use to assess the accuracy of regression inference. We show that an alternative, called the image bootstrap, has higher coverage accuracy at the cost of more computation. We define new parameters that measure variable importance and that can be inferred with greater accuracy than the usual regression coefficients. There is a inference-prediction tradeoff: splitting increases the accuracy and robustness of inference but can decrease the accuracy of the predictions. It is common practice in statistical data analysis to perform data-driven variable selection and derive statistical inference from the resulting model. Such inference enjoys none of the guarantees that classical statistical theory provides for tests and confidence intervals when the model has been chosen a priori. We propose to produce valid post-selection inference'' by reducing the problem to one of simultaneous inference and hence suitably widening conventional confidence and retention intervals. Simultaneity is required for all linear functions that arise as coefficient estimates in all submodels. By purchasing simultaneity insurance'' for all possible submodels, the resulting post-selection inference is rendered universally valid under all possible model selection procedures. This inference is therefore generally conservative for particular selection procedures, but it is always less conservative than full Scheffe protection. Importantly it does not depend on the truth of the selected submodel, and hence it produces valid inference even in wrong models. We describe the structure of the simultaneous inference problem and give some asymptotic results. To perform inference after model selection, we propose controlling the selective type I error; i.e., the error rate of a test given that it was performed. By doing so, we recover long-run frequency properties among selected hypotheses analogous to those that apply in the classical (non-adaptive) context. Our proposal is closely related to data splitting and has a similar intuitive justification, but is more powerful. Exploiting the classical theory of Lehmann 1.1. Introduction.- 1.2. Outer Integrals and Measurable Majorants.- 1.3. Weak Convergence.- 1.4. Product Spaces.- 1.5. Spaces of Bounded Functions.- 1.6. Spaces of Locally Bounded Functions.- 1.7. The Ball Sigma-Field and Measurability of Suprema.- 1.8. Hilbert Spaces.- 1.9. Convergence: Almost Surely and in Probability.- 1.10. Convergence: Weak, Almost Uniform, and in Probability.- 1.11. Refinements.- 1.12. Uniformity and Metrization.- 2.1. Introduction.- 2.2. Maximal Inequalities and Covering Numbers.- 2.3. Symmetrization and Measurability.- 2.4. Glivenko-Cantelli Theorems.- 2.5. Donsker Theorems.- 2.6. Uniform Entropy Numbers.- 2.7. Bracketing Numbers.- 2.8. Uniformity in the Underlying Distribution.- 2.9. Multiplier Central Limit Theorems.- 2.10. Permanence of the Donsker Property.- 2.11. The Central Limit Theorem for Processes.- 2.12. Partial-Sum Processes.- 2.13. Other Donsker Classes.- 2.14. Tail Bounds.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. M-Estimators.- 3.3. Z-Estimators.- 3.4. Rates of Convergence.- 3.5. Random Sample Size, Poissonization and Kac Processes.- 3.6. The Bootstrap.- 3.7. The Two-Sample Problem.- 3.8. Independence Empirical Processes.- 3.9. The Delta-Method.- 3.10. Contiguity.- 3.11. Convolution and Minimax Theorems.- A. Appendix.- A.1. Inequalities.- A.2. Gaussian Processes.- A.2.1. Inequalities and Gaussian Comparison.- A.2.2. Exponential Bounds.- A.2.3. Majorizing Measures.- A.2.4. Further Results.- A.3. Rademacher Processes.- A.4. Isoperimetric Inequalities for Product Measures.- A.5. Some Limit Theorems.- A.6. More Inequalities.- A.6.1. Binomial Random Variables.- A.6.2. Multinomial Random Vectors.- A.6.3. Rademacher Sums.- Notes.- References.- Author Index.- List of Symbols. We develop a framework for post model selection inference, via marginal screening, in linear regression. At the core of this framework is a result that characterizes the exact distribution of linear functions of the response @math , conditional on the model being selected ( condition on selection" framework). This allows us to construct valid confidence intervals and hypothesis tests for regression coefficients that account for the selection procedure. In contrast to recent work in high-dimensional statistics, our results are exact (non-asymptotic) and require no eigenvalue-like assumptions on the design matrix @math . Furthermore, the computational cost of marginal regression, constructing confidence intervals and hypothesis testing is negligible compared to the cost of linear regression, thus making our methods particularly suitable for extremely large datasets. Although we focus on marginal screening to illustrate the applicability of the condition on selection framework, this framework is much more broadly applicable. We show how to apply the proposed framework to several other selection procedures including orthogonal matching pursuit, non-negative least squares, and marginal screening+Lasso. ABSTRACTWe propose new inference tools for forward stepwise regression, least angle regression, and the lasso. Assuming a Gaussian model for the observation vector y, we first describe a general scheme to perform valid inference after any selection event that can be characterized as y falling into a polyhedral set. This framework allows us to derive conditional (post-selection) hypothesis tests at any step of forward stepwise or least angle regression, or any step along the lasso regularization path, because, as it turns out, selection events for these procedures can be expressed as polyhedral constraints on y. The p-values associated with these tests are exactly uniform under the null distribution, in finite samples, yielding exact Type I error control. The tests can also be inverted to produce confidence intervals for appropriate underlying regression parameters. The R package selectiveInference, freely available on the CRAN repository, implements the new inference tools described in this article. Suppl... Recently, (2014) developed a method for making inferences on parameters after model selection, in a regression setting with normally distributed errors. In this work, we study the large sample properties of this method, without assuming normality. We prove that the test statistic of (2014) is asymptotically pivotal, as the number of samples n grows and the dimension d of the regression problem stays fixed; our asymptotic result is uniformly valid over a wide class of nonnormal error distributions. We also propose an efficient bootstrap version of this test that is provably (asymptotically) conservative, and in practice, often delivers shorter confidence intervals that the original normality-based approach. Finally, we prove that the test statistic of (2014) does not converge uniformly in a high-dimensional setting, when the dimension d is allowed grow.