Abstract:Across science and policy, decision-makers often need to draw conclusions about the best candidate among competing alternatives. For instance, researchers may seek to infer the effectiveness of the most successful treatment or determine which demographic group benefits most from a specific treatment. Similarly, in machine learning, practitioners are often interested in the population performance of the model that performs best empirically. However, cherry-picking the best candidate leads to the winner's curse: the observed performance for the winner is biased upwards, rendering conclusions based on standard measures of uncertainty invalid. We introduce the zoom correction, a novel approach for valid inference on the winner. Our method is flexible: it can be employed in both parametric and nonparametric settings, can handle arbitrary dependencies between candidates, and automatically adapts to the level of selection bias. The method easily extends to important related problems, such as inference on the top k winners, inference on the value and identity of the population winner, and inference on "near-winners."
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: in scientific and policy - making, how to conduct effective statistical inferences on the best option selected from multiple competing candidates. Specifically, when choosing the "best one", it usually leads to the "winner's curse" phenomenon - that is, the performance of the observed best one is systematically overestimated, making the conclusions based on standard uncertainty measures invalid. Therefore, the paper aims to propose a new method to correct this bias and ensure that the inference results about the best one are accurate and reliable.
### Problem Background
In scientific research and machine learning, it is often necessary to select the best - performing one from multiple candidates. For example:
- Researchers may need to infer the effectiveness of the most successful treatment method.
- Decide which specific treatment is most effective for a certain group.
- In machine learning, evaluate the true performance of the best - performing model.
However, choosing the best candidate (i.e., the "winner") often leads to overly optimistic conclusions. For example, the maximum observed treatment effect may overestimate the true effect; over - adjusting the model hyper - parameters may lead to poor overall performance. To ensure the credibility of the conclusions, the bias introduced in the selection process must be quantified and corrected.
### Mathematical Description
Mathematically, this problem can be stated as: given the noisy estimates \(X_1, X_2,\ldots, X_m\) of \(m\) candidates, infer the mean \(\theta_{\hat{\imath}}\) of these estimates, where \(\hat{\imath}=\arg\max_{i\in [m]} X_i\). For example, \(X_i\) can represent the observed effect of treatment \(i\) or the empirical performance of model \(i\). When inferring the mean of the best one, the winner's curse must be taken into account: \(X_{\hat{\imath}}\) is often systematically overestimated, especially when there are a large number of near - optimal competitors.
### Paper Solution
To solve these problems, the authors propose the "zoom correction" method, which is a new method for effectively inferring the best one. Its main features include:
- **Flexibility**: Applicable to parametric and non - parametric settings, able to handle any dependencies between candidates, and automatically adapt to the degree of selection bias.
- **Adaptability**: Adjust according to the selection bias in the actual data, rather than assuming the worst - case scenario. When the gap between the winner and other candidates increases, the method will gradually approach the standard, uncorrected inference.
### Method Overview
The core steps of the zoom correction method are as follows:
1. Define the point hypothesis test \(H_0(\theta): E[X]=\theta\) for each \(\theta\in\mathbb{R}^m\).
2. Obtain the simultaneous confidence region \(\mathcal{C}_\alpha(X)=\{\theta\in\mathbb{R}^m: H_0(\theta)\text{ not rejected}\}\) by inverting the test.
3. Project \(\mathcal{C}_\alpha\) along the winning coordinate \(\hat{\imath}\) to obtain the confidence interval \(\mathcal{C}_{\alpha,\hat{\imath}}=\{\theta_{\hat{\imath}}:\theta\in\mathcal{C}_\alpha\}\) of the best one.
This method effectively reduces the influence of selection bias by "focusing" on the most promising candidate, thus providing more accurate inference results.