Inference after variable selection using restricted permutation methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When confronted with multiple covariates and a response variable, analysts sometimes apply a variable-selection algorithm to the covariate-response data to identify a subset of covariates potentially associated with the response, and then wish to make inferences about parameters in a model for the marginal association between the selected covariates and the response. If an independent data set were available, the parameters of interest could be estimated by using standard inference methods to fit the postulated marginal model to the independent data set. However, when applied to the same data set used by the variable selector, standard ("naive") methods can lead to distorted inferences. The authors develop testing and interval estimation methods for parameters reflecting the marginal association between the selected covariates and response variable, based on the same data set used for variable selection. They provide theoretical justification for the proposed methods, present results to guide their implementation, and use simulations to assess and compare their performance to a sample-splitting approach. The methods are illustrated with data from a recent AIDS study.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it