Interpreting ReproStat Outputs • ReproStat

Why interpretation matters

ReproStat does not just return a single score. It returns a collection of stability summaries, each reflecting a different way a model result can vary under perturbation.

This article explains how to read those outputs in a way that is useful for real analysis work.

The question ReproStat answers

The package asks:

If I perturb the observed data in reasonable ways and refit the same model many times, how much do the key outputs move?

That is different from:

classical uncertainty around one fitted model
external replication across studies
causal identification
model adequacy in a broader scientific sense

ReproStat is focused on stability of fitted outputs under repeated data perturbation.

Running a diagnostic object

diag_obj <- run_diagnostics(
  mpg ~ wt + hp + disp,
  data = mtcars,
  B = 150,
  method = "bootstrap"
)

Everything else in the package builds from this object.

Coefficient stability

coef_stability(diag_obj)
#>  (Intercept)           wt           hp         disp 
#> 5.766188e+00 9.574906e-01 1.350558e-04 8.814208e-05

This measures how much estimated coefficients vary across perturbation runs.

Interpretation:

lower values indicate more stable coefficient estimates
large values suggest the estimated effect size is sensitive to the data
coefficients can be unstable even when the average fitted model looks strong

Use this when you care about the magnitude of effects, not only whether they are statistically significant.

P-value stability

pvalue_stability(diag_obj)
#>         wt         hp       disp 
#> 0.90666667 0.86666667 0.02666667

This reports the proportion of perturbation runs in which each coefficient is significant at the chosen alpha.

Interpretation:

values near 1 mean the term is almost always significant
values near 0 mean the term is almost never significant
values near 0.5 mean the significance decision is unstable

This is especially helpful when a predictor looks “significant” in the base fit but may be borderline under small perturbations.

Selection stability

selection_stability(diag_obj)
#>        wt        hp      disp 
#> 1.0000000 1.0000000 0.4466667

For standard regression backends, this reflects sign consistency across perturbations. For glmnet, it reflects non-zero selection frequency.

Interpretation:

high values suggest the direction or inclusion pattern is stable
low values suggest the predictor is not behaving consistently

This is often the most intuitive measure when the practical question is: “Does this variable keep showing up in the same way?”

Prediction stability

prediction_stability(diag_obj)
#> $pointwise_variance
#>  [1] 0.3662248 0.3309453 0.5611693 0.6449963 0.8857157 0.4844340 0.6296128
#>  [8] 0.7715900 0.5702159 0.6549459 0.6549459 0.7078378 0.3601373 0.3973861
#> [15] 2.0421895 2.1812327 2.0343783 0.7530433 1.4530479 1.0200743 0.4814946
#> [22] 0.5898336 0.4856211 0.6416806 1.1922447 0.9322830 0.6916174 1.3695036
#> [29] 1.0020490 0.9246772 3.3817941 0.5130429
#> 
#> $mean_variance
#> [1] 0.9284364

Prediction stability summarizes how much the model’s predictions vary across perturbation runs.

Interpretation:

lower mean prediction variance indicates more stable predictive behavior
unstable predictions can occur even when some coefficient summaries look fine

This is useful when the model will be used for scoring, ranking, or decision support rather than only interpretation.

The Reproducibility Index

reproducibility_index(diag_obj)
#> $index
#> [1] 88.71268
#> 
#> $components
#>       coef     pvalue  selection prediction 
#>  0.9270762  0.8311111  0.8155556  0.9747641

The Reproducibility Index aggregates multiple stability dimensions into a single 0-100 score.

A practical reading guide is:

90-100: highly stable under the chosen perturbation scheme
70-89: reasonably stable overall
50-69: mixed stability; inspect components carefully
< 50: low stability; the model is sensitive in ways worth investigating

These are not universal cutoffs. They are interpretive anchors.

Do not read the RI alone

Two models can have similar RI values for different reasons:

one may have stable coefficients but unstable predictions
another may have stable predictions but unstable significance decisions

For that reason, the RI should be treated as a summary, not a replacement for the component-level diagnostics.

Confidence intervals for the RI

ri_confidence_interval(diag_obj, R = 300, seed = 1)
#>     2.5%    97.5% 
#> 87.00194 90.40639

This interval reflects uncertainty in the RI induced by the stored perturbation draws. It is useful when you want to know whether the reported RI is itself stable or highly variable.

Choosing a perturbation method

Different perturbation schemes answer different questions.

Bootstrap

Use "bootstrap" when you want a broad sense of ordinary sampling variability.

Subsample

Use "subsample" when you want to know whether the result depends heavily on which observations happen to be included.

Noise

Use "noise" when you want to stress test sensitivity to small measurement error or recording noise in numeric predictors.

When a low score is useful

A low RI is not a failure of the package. It is a result.

It can tell you that:

the model is over-sensitive to the observed data
the effect structure is weak or unstable
a simpler or more robust specification may be preferable
the analysis should be reported with more caution

What to report in practice

For applied work, a compact reporting pattern is:

describe the perturbation method and B
report the RI and its confidence interval
mention which components were most and least stable
include at least one stability plot
note any sensitivity that affects substantive conclusions

Next steps

After reading this article, the most useful follow-up pages are:

vignette("ReproStat-intro") for the basic workflow
the backend guide for model-family differences
the workflow patterns article for practical usage designs