MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909641699

Doubly Sparse Regularized Regression Incorporating Graphical Structure Among Predictors

2018· dissertation· en· W2909641699 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew Stephenson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgricultural Adaptation CouncilEisaiNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBioClinicaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyGenentechIXICOMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationBiogenU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsRegressionGraphical modelArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research has demonstrated that information learned from building a graphical model on the predictor set of a regularized linear regression model can be leveraged to improve prediction of a continuous outcome. This thesis proposes the doubly sparse regression incorporating graphical structure among predictors (DSRIG) model, and its logistic regression counterpart, doubly sparse logistic regression incorporating graphical structure among predictors (DSLRIG). In general, the regularization scheme of these models works by building an undirected graph over the predictor set and then using the resulting neighbourhoods of the graph to form a set of (overlapping) groups. Sparsity is encouraged both within and among the groups that contribute to the overall estimation of the regression parameters. Together, DSRIG and DSLRIG provide a unified framework for the fitting of many other commonly used regularization schemes. In this thesis, a combination of simulation and analysis of real world data are used to evaluate and compare model performance. Ultimately, the DSRIG and DSLRIG models improve outcome prediction and parameter estimation compared to previously proposed methods. A finite sample error bound is derived for DSRIG in the case of a quantitative outcome and predictors distributed as multivariate normal. Guidelines for the implementation of DSRIG in the analysis of real world data are also provided.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207