MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sparsity and Smoothness Via the Fused Lasso

2004· article· en· W2140514146 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Tibshirani, Michael A. Saunders, Saharon Rosset, Ji Zhu, Keith Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLasso (programming language)Elastic net regularizationMathematicsSmoothnessNorm (philosophy)Applied mathematicsLeast-squares function approximationRegressionClassifier (UML)Linear regressionAlgorithmMathematical optimizationComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The lasso penalizes a least squares regression by the sum of the absolute values (L1-norm) of the coefficients. The form of this penalty encourages sparse solutions (with many coefficients equal to 0). We propose the ‘fused lasso’, a generalization that is designed for problems with features that can be ordered in some meaningful way. The fused lasso penalizes the L1-norm of both the coefficients and their successive differences. Thus it encourages sparsity of the coefficients and also sparsity of their differences—i.e. local constancy of the coefficient profile. The fused lasso is especially useful when the number of features p is much greater than N, the sample size. The technique is also extended to the ‘hinge’ loss function that underlies the support vector classifier. We illustrate the methods on examples from protein mass spectroscopy and gene expression data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2,805
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207