IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/stapro/v230y2026ics0167715225002354.html

Location tests with noisy proxies for latent variables

Author

Listed:
  • Deutsch, Louis
  • Katsevich, Eugene

Abstract

We investigate inference in a latent binary variable model where a noisy proxy of the latent variable is available, motivated by the variable perturbation effectiveness problem in single-cell CRISPR screens. The baseline approach is to ignore the perturbation effectiveness problem, while a recent proposal employs a weighted average based on the proxies. Our main goals are to determine how accurate the proxies must be in order for a weighted test to gain power over the unweighted baseline, and to develop tests that are powerful regardless of the accuracy of the proxies. To address the first goal, we compute the Pitman relative efficiency of the weighted test relative to the unweighted test, yielding an interpretable quantification of proxy quality that drives the power of the weighted test. To address the second goal, we propose two strategies. First, we propose a maximum-likelihood based approach that adapts the proxies to the data. Second, we propose an estimator of the Pitman efficiency if a “positive control outcome variable” is available (as is often the case in single-cell CRISPR screens), which facilitates an adaptive choice of whether to use the proxies at all. Our numerical simulations support the Pitman efficiency as the key quantity for determining whether the weighted test gains power over the baseline, and demonstrate that the two proposed adaptive tests can improve on both existing approaches across a range of proxy qualities.

Suggested Citation

  • Deutsch, Louis & Katsevich, Eugene, 2026. "Location tests with noisy proxies for latent variables," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:230:y:2026:i:c:s0167715225002354
    DOI: 10.1016/j.spl.2025.110590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167715225002354
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.spl.2025.110590?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Constantine E. Frangakis & Donald B. Rubin, 2002. "Principal Stratification in Causal Inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 21-29, March.
    2. Manabu Kuroki & Judea Pearl, 2014. "Measurement bias and effect restoration in causal inference," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 101(2), pages 423-437.
    3. Yifan Cui & Hongming Pu & Xu Shi & Wang Miao & Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, 2024. "Semiparametric Proximal Causal Inference," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 119(546), pages 1348-1359, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yue Hu & Yuanshan Gao & Minhao Qi, 2025. "Proximal Causal Inference for Censored Data with an Application to Right Heart Catheterization Data," Stats, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Ting-Chih Hung & Yu-Chang Chen, 2026. "The Proximal Surrogate Index: Long-Term Treatment Effects under Unobserved Confounding," Papers 2601.17712, arXiv.org.
    3. Michael R. Elliott & Anna Conlon & Yun Li, 2013. "Discussion on “Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 565-569, September.
    4. Ying Huang & Shibasish Dasgupta, 2019. "Likelihood-Based Methods for Assessing Principal Surrogate Endpoints in Vaccine Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 11(3), pages 504-523, December.
    5. Manabu Kuroki & Hisayoshi Nanmo, 2020. "Variance formulas for estimated mean response and predicted response with external intervention based on the back-door criterion in linear structural equation models," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 104(4), pages 667-685, December.
    6. Rachel Axelrod & Daniel Nevo, 2023. "A sensitivity analysis approach for the causal hazard ratio in randomized and observational studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2743-2756, September.
    7. Dean Follmann, 2006. "Augmented Designs to Assess Immune Response in Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 1161-1169, December.
    8. Bubb, Ryan & Kaufman, Alex, 2014. "Securitization and moral hazard: Evidence from credit score cutoff rules," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-18.
    9. Gaoming Lin & Xin Zhang & Zhonghao Ren & Quan Zou & Prayag Tiwari & Changjun Zhou & Yijie Ding, 2025. "TAPB: an interventional debiasing framework for alleviating target prior bias in drug-target interaction prediction," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Peter B. Gilbert & Ronald J. Bosch & Michael G. Hudgens, 2003. "Sensitivity Analysis for the Assessment of Causal Vaccine Effects on Viral Load in HIV Vaccine Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 531-541, September.
    11. German Blanco & Carlos A. Flores & Alfonso Flores-Lagunes, 2013. "Bounds on Average and Quantile Treatment Effects of Job Corps Training on Wages," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 48(3), pages 659-701.
    12. Sujin Park & Ali Tafti & Galit Shmueli, 2024. "Transporting Causal Effects Across Populations Using Structural Causal Modeling: An Illustration to Work-from-Home Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 686-705, June.
    13. Michael Rosenblum & Nicholas P. Jewell & Mark van der Laan & Stephen Shiboski & Ariane van der Straten & Nancy Padian, 2009. "Analysing direct effects in randomized trials with secondary interventions: an application to human immunodeficiency virus prevention trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(2), pages 443-465, April.
    14. Jincheng Zhou & James S. Hodges & Haitao Chu, 2020. "Rejoinder to “CACE and meta‐analysis (letter to the editor)” by Stuart Baker," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 1385-1389, December.
    15. Laura Forastiere & Patrizia Lattarulo & Marco Mariani & Fabrizia Mealli & Laura Razzolini, 2021. "Exploring Encouragement, Treatment, and Spillover Effects Using Principal Stratification, With Application to a Field Experiment on Teens’ Museum Attendance," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 244-258, January.
    16. Plamen Nikolov & Hongjian Wang & Kevin Acker, 2020. "Wage premium of Communist Party membership: Evidence from China," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 309-338, August.
    17. Jennifer Hill & Jane Waldfogel & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2002. "Differential effects of high-quality child care," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(4), pages 601-627.
    18. Legge, Stefan & Schmid, Lukas, 2016. "Media attention and betting markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 304-333.
    19. Maria Josefsson & Michael J. Daniels, 2021. "Bayesian semi‐parametric G‐computation for causal inference in a cohort study with MNAR dropout and death," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(2), pages 398-414, March.
    20. Giovanni Mellace & Roberto Rocci, 2011. "Principal Stratification in sample selection problems with non normal error terms," CEIS Research Paper 194, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 02 May 2011.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:230:y:2026:i:c:s0167715225002354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.