Asymptotic Analysis of Robust LASSOs in the Presence of Noise With Large Variance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of linear regression, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) is probably the most popular supervised-learning technique proposed to recover sparse signals from high-dimensional measurements. Prior literature has mainly concerned itself with independent, identically distributed noise with moderate variance. In many real applications, however, the measurement errors may have heavy-tailed distributions or suffer from severe outliers, making the LASSO poorly estimate the coefficients due to its sensitivity to large error variance. To address this concern, a robust version of the LASSO is proposed, and the limiting distribution of its estimator is derived. Model selection consistency is established for the proposed robust LASSO under an adaptation procedure of the penalty weight. A parallel asymptotic analysis is derived for the Huberized LASSO, a previously proposed robust LASSO, and it is shown that the Huberized LASSO estimator preserves similar asymptotics even with a Cauchy error distribution. We show that asymptotic variances of the two robust LASSO estimators are stabilized in the presence of large variance noise, compared with the unbounded asymptotic variance of the ordinary LASSO estimator. The asymptotic analysis from the nonstochastic design is extended to the case of random design. Simulations further confirm our theoretical results.
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 | 0.010 | 0.044 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".