Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 0807.4231

QR-Adjustment for Clustering Tests Based on Nearest Neighbor Contingency Tables

Abstract

The spatial interaction between two or more classes of points may cause spatial clustering patterns such as segregation or association, which can be tested using a nearest neighbor contingency table (NNCT). A NNCT is constructed using the frequencies of class types of points in nearest neighbor (NN) pairs. For the NNCT-tests, the null pattern is either complete spatial randomness (CSR) of the points from two or more classes (called CSR independence) or random labeling (RL). The distributions of the NNCT-test statistics depend on the number of reflexive NNs (denoted by $R$) and the number of shared NNs (denoted by $Q$), both of which depend on the allocation of the points. Hence $Q$ and $R$ are fixed quantities under RL, but random variables under CSR independence. Using their observed values in NNCT analysis makes the distributions of the NNCT-test statistics conditional on $Q$ and $R$ under CSR independence. In this article, I use the empirically estimated expected values of $Q$ and $R$ under CSR independence pattern to remove the conditioning of NNCT-tests (such a correction is called the \emph{QR-adjustment}, henceforth). I present a Monte Carlo simulation study to compare the conditional NNCT-tests and QR-adjusted tests under CSR independence and segregation and association alternatives. I demonstrate that QR-adjustment does not significantly improve the empirical size estimates under CSR independence and power estimates under segregation or association alternatives. For illustrative purposes, I apply the conditional and empirically corrected tests on two example data sets.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Elvan Ceyhan. 2008-07-26. QR-Adjustment for Clustering Tests Based on Nearest Neighbor Contingency Tables. https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4231

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME