Shrinkage-to-Tapering Estimation of Large Covariance Matrices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce a shrinkage-to-tapering approach for estimating large covariance matrices when the number of samples is substantially fewer than the number of variables (i.e.,n,p→∞ andp/n→∞). The proposed estimator improves upon both shrinkage and tapering estimators by shrinking the sample covariance matrix to its tapered version. We first show that, under both normalized Frobenius and spectral risks, the minimum mean-squared error (MMSE) shrinkage-to-identity estimator is inconsistent and outperformed by a minimax tapering estimator for a class of high-dimensional and diagonally dominant covariance matrices. Motivated by this observation, we propose a shrinkage-to-tapering oracle (STO) estimator for efficient estimation of general, large covariance matrices. A closed-form formula of the optimal coefficient ρ of the proposed STO estimator is derived under the minimum Frobenius risk. Since the true covariance matrix is to be estimated, we further propose a STO approximating (STOA) algorithm with a data-driven bandwidth selection procedure to iteratively estimate the coefficient ρ and the covariance matrix. We study the finite sample performances of different estimators and our simulation results clearly show the improved performances of the proposed STO estimators. Finally, the proposed STOA method is applied to a real breast cancer gene expression data set.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".