Detection with the scan and the average likelihood ratio

Hock Peng Chan; Guenther Walther

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1107.4344

Detection with the scan and the average likelihood ratio

Hock Peng Chan·Guenther Walther

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We investigate the performance of the scan (maximum likelihood ratio statistic) and of the average likelihood ratio statistic in the problem of detecting a deterministic signal with unknown spatial extent in the prototypical univariate sampled data model with white Gaussian noise. Our results show that the scan statistic, a popular tool for detection problems, is optimal only for the detection of signals with the smallest spatial extent. For signals with larger spatial extent the scan is suboptimal, and the power loss can be considerable. In contrast, the average likelihood ratio statistic is optimal for the detection of signals on all scales except the smallest ones, where its performance is only slightly suboptimal. We give rigorous mathematical statements of these results as well as heuristic explanations which suggest that the essence of these findings applies to detection problems quite generally, such as the detection of clusters in models involving densities or intensities or the detection of multivariate signals. We present a modification of the average likelihood ratio that yields optimal detection of signals with arbitrary spatial extent and which has the additional benefit of allowing for a fast computation of the statistic. In contrast, optimal detection with the scan seems to require the use of scale-dependent critical values.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Hock Peng Chan, Guenther Walther. 2011-07-21. Detection with the scan and the average likelihood ratio. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4344

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗