From Fixed-X to Random-X Regression: Bias-Variance Decompositions, Covariance Penalties, and Prediction Error Estimation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In statistical prediction, classical approaches for model selection and model evaluation based on covariance penalties are still widely used. Most of the literature on this topic is based on what we call the "Fixed-X" assumption, where covariate values are assumed to be nonrandom. By contrast, it is often more reasonable to take a "Random-X" view, where the covariate values are independently drawn for both training and prediction. To study the applicability of covariance penalties in this setting, we propose a decomposition of Random-X prediction error in which the randomness in the covariates contributes to both the bias and variance components. This decomposition is general, but we concentrate on the fundamental case of least squares regression. We prove that in this setting the move from Fixed-X to Random-X prediction results in an increase in both bias and variance. When the covariates are normally distributed and the linear model is unbiased, all terms in this decomposition are explicitly computable, which yields an extension of Mallows' Cp that we call RCp. RCp also holds asymptotically for certain classes of nonnormal covariates. When the noise variance is unknown, plugging in the usual unbiased estimate leads to an approach that we call hatRCp, which is closely related to Sp (Tukey 1967), and GCV (Craven and Wahba 1978). For excess bias, we propose an estimate based on the "shortcut-formula" for ordinary cross-validation (OCV), resulting in an approach we call RCp^+. Theoretical arguments and numerical simulations suggest that RCP^+ is typically superior to OCV, though the difference is small. We further examine the Random-X error of other popular estimators. The surprising result we get for ridge regression is that, in the heavily-regularized regime, Random-X variance is smaller than Fixed-X variance, which can lead to smaller overall Random-X error.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2017.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 3; 2023: 0; 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
12 papers.
- 2022More Than a Toy: Random Matrix Models Predict How Real-World Neural Representations Generalizecited by 87
- 2021Cross-validation: what does it estimate and how well does it do it?cited by 65
- 2024Why do Random Forests Work? Understanding Tree Ensembles as Self-Regularizing Adaptive Smootherscited by 13
- 2021Active operator inference for learning low-dimensional dynamical-system models from noisy datacited by 5
- 2024Classical Statistical (In-Sample) Intuitions Don't Generalize Well: A Note on Bias-Variance Tradeoffs, Overfitting and Moving from Fixed to Random Designscited by 5
- 2024The Limits of Assumption-free Tests for Algorithm Performancecited by 2
- 2022GRASP: A Goodness-of-Fit Test for Classification Learningcited by 1
- 2022Inadmissibility of the corrected Akaike information criterioncited by 0
- 2024Predictive Performance Test based on the Exhaustive Nested Cross-Validation for High-dimensional datacited by 0
- 2025Is Supervised Learning Really That Different from Unsupervised?cited by 0
- 2026A Rigorous, Tractable Measure of Model Complexitycited by 0
- 2026Optimal ridge regularization revisitedcited by 0
- 2026Optimal ridge regularization revisited27 May 2026
- 2026A Rigorous, Tractable Measure of Model Complexity20 May 2026
- 2025Is Supervised Learning Really That Different from Unsupervised?16 May 2025
- 2024Classical Statistical (In-Sample) Intuitions Don't Generalize Well: A Note on Bias-Variance Tradeoffs, Overfitting and Moving from Fixed to Random Designs27 Sep 2024
- 2024Predictive Performance Test based on the Exhaustive Nested Cross-Validation for High-dimensional data6 Aug 2024
- 2024The Limits of Assumption-free Tests for Algorithm Performance12 Feb 2024
- 2024Why do Random Forests Work? Understanding Tree Ensembles as Self-Regularizing Adaptive Smoothers2 Feb 2024
- 2022Inadmissibility of the corrected Akaike information criterion17 Nov 2022
- 2022GRASP: A Goodness-of-Fit Test for Classification Learning5 Sep 2022
- 2022More Than a Toy: Random Matrix Models Predict How Real-World Neural Representations Generalize11 Mar 2022
- 2021Active operator inference for learning low-dimensional dynamical-system models from noisy data20 Jul 2021
- 2021Cross-validation: what does it estimate and how well does it do it?1 Apr 2021