Random features models: a way to study the success of naive imputation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Constant (naive) imputation is still widely used in practice as this is a first easy-to-use technique to deal with missing data. Yet, this simple method could be expected to induce a large bias for prediction purposes, as the imputed input may strongly differ from the true underlying data. However, recent works suggest that this bias is low in the context of high-dimensional linear predictors when data is supposed to be missing completely at random (MCAR). This paper completes the picture for linear predictors by confirming the intuition that the bias is negligible and that surprisingly naive imputation also remains relevant in very low dimension.To this aim, we consider a unique underlying random features model, which offers a rigorous framework for studying predictive performances, whilst the dimension of the observed features varies.Building on these theoretical results, we establish finite-sample bounds on stochastic gradient (SGD) predictors applied to zero-imputed data, a strategy particularly well suited for large-scale learning.If the MCAR assumption appears to be strong, we show that similar favorable behaviors occur for more complex missing data scenarios.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2024.
Builds on
13 of 36 references.
References · 13
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 508
- 2014Breaking the Curse of Dimensionality with Convex Neural Networkscited by 329
- 2016Generalization Properties of Learning with Random Featurescited by 163
- 2013Non-strongly-convex smooth stochastic approximation with convergence rate O(1/n)cited by 110
- 2013Early stopping and non-parametric regression: An optimal data-dependent stopping rulecited by 86
- 2016Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger Convergence Rates for Least-Squares Regressioncited by 64
- 2021What's a good imputation to predict with missing values?cited by 61
- 2019On the consistency of supervised learning with missing valuescited by 52
- 2018Learning with SGD and Random Featurescited by 33
- 2019On Robustness of Principal Component Regressioncited by 27
- 2022Benchmarking missing-values approaches for predictive models on health databasescited by 23
- 2020Linear predictor on linearly-generated data with missing values: non consistency and solutionscited by 20
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2024Imputation for prediction: beware of diminishing returnscited by 11
- 2025Random Feature Representation Boostingcited by 4
- 2025Missing Data in Signal Processing and Machine Learning: Models, Methods and Modern Approachescited by 2
- 2025Model Evaluation in the Dark: Robust Classifier Metrics with Missing Labelscited by 0
- 2025Optimal Transport with Heterogeneously Missing Datacited by 0
- 2026Handling Covariate Mismatch in Collaborative Linear Predictioncited by 0
- 2026Increasing Missingness to Reduce Bias: Richardson-SGD with Missing Datacited by 0
- 2026Increasing Missingness to Reduce Bias: Richardson-SGD with Missing Data19 May 2026
- 2026Handling Covariate Mismatch in Collaborative Linear Prediction2 Feb 2026
- 2025Missing Data in Signal Processing and Machine Learning: Models, Methods and Modern Approaches2 Jun 2025
- 2025Optimal Transport with Heterogeneously Missing Data22 May 2025
- 2025Model Evaluation in the Dark: Robust Classifier Metrics with Missing Labels25 Apr 2025
- 2025Random Feature Representation Boosting30 Jan 2025
- 2024Imputation for prediction: beware of diminishing returns29 Jul 2024