Comments on: High-dimensional simultaneous inference with the bootstrap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We congratulate the authors on their stimulating contribution to the burgeoning high-dimensional inference literature. The bootstrap offers such an attractive methodology in these settings, but it is well-known that its naive application in the context of shrinkage/superefficiency is fraught with danger (e.g. Samworth in Biometrika 90:985–990, 2003 ; Chatterjee and Lahiri in J Am Stat Assoc 106:608–625, 2011 ). The authors show how these perils can be elegantly sidestepped by working with de-biased, or de-sparsified, versions of estimators. In this discussion, we consider alternative approaches to individual and simultaneous inference in high-dimensional linear models, and retain the notation of the paper.
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 | 0.015 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.018 |
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".