MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204774351 · doi:10.1080/01621459.2015.1108848

Exact Post-Selection Inference for Sequential Regression Procedures

2016· article· en· W2204774351 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan J. Tibshirani, Jonathan Taylor, Richard Lockhart, Robert Tibshirani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Statistical Association · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceLasso (programming language)MathematicsRegressionModel selectionAlgorithmRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceRegression analysisStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose new inference tools for forward stepwise regression, least angle regression, and the lasso. Assuming a Gaussian model for the observation vector y, we first describe a general scheme to perform valid inference after any selection event that can be characterized as y falling into a polyhedral set. This framework allows us to derive conditional (post-selection) hypothesis tests at any step of forward stepwise or least angle regression, or any step along the lasso regularization path, because, as it turns out, selection events for these procedures can be expressed as polyhedral constraints on y. The p-values associated with these tests are exactly uniform under the null distribution, in finite samples, yielding exact Type I error control. The tests can also be inverted to produce confidence intervals for appropriate underlying regression parameters. The R package selectiveInference, freely available on the CRAN repository, implements the new inference tools described in this article. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations352
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Statistical AssociationSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207