Post selection shrinkage estimation for high‐dimensional data analysis
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
In high‐dimensional data settings where p ≫ n , many penalized regularization approaches were studied for simultaneous variable selection and estimation. However, with the existence of covariates with weak effect, many existing variable selection methods, including Lasso and its generations, cannot distinguish covariates with weak and no contribution. Thus, prediction based on a subset model of selected covariates only can be inefficient. In this paper, we propose a post selection shrinkage estimation strategy to improve the prediction performance of a selected subset model. Such a post selection shrinkage estimator (PSE) is data adaptive and constructed by shrinking a post selection weighted ridge estimator in the direction of a selected candidate subset. Under an asymptotic distributional quadratic risk criterion, its prediction performance is explored analytically. We show that the proposed post selection PSE performs better than the post selection weighted ridge estimator. More importantly, it improves the prediction performance of any candidate subset model selected from most existing Lasso‐type variable selection methods significantly. The relative performance of the post selection PSE is demonstrated by both simulation studies and real‐data analysis. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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