High-dimensional Feature Selection Using Hierarchical Bayesian Logistic Regression with Heavy-tailed Priors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of selecting the most useful features from a great many (eg, thousands) of candidates arises in many areas of modern sciences. An interesting problem from genomic research is that, from thousands of genes that are active (expressed) in certain tissue cells, we want to find the genes that can be used to separate tissues of different classes (eg. cancer and normal). In this paper, we report our empirical experiences of using Bayesian logistic regression based on heavy-tailed priors with moderately small degree freedom (such as 1) and very small scale, and using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo to do computation. We discuss the advantages and limitations of this method, and illustrate the difficulties that remain unsolved. The method is applied to a real microarray data set related to prostate cancer. The method identifies only 3 non-redundant genes out of 6033 candidates but achieves better leave-one-out cross-validated prediction accuracy than many other methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".