On the Tuning Parameter Selection in Model Selection and Model Averaging: A Monte Carlo Study
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
Model selection and model averaging have been the popular approaches in handling modelling uncertainties. Fan and Li(2006) laid out a unified frame work for variable selection via penalized likelihood. The tuning parameter selection is vital in the optimization problem for the penalized estimators in achieving consistent selection and optimal estimation. Since the OLSpost-LASSO estimator by Belloni and Chernozhukov (2013), few studies have focused on the finite sample performances of the class of OLS post-penalty estimators with the tuning parameter choice determined by different tuning parameter selection approaches. We aim to supplement the existing model selection literature by studying such a class of OLS post-selection estimators. 
 Inspired by the Shrinkage Averaging Estimator (SAE) by Schomaker(2012) and the Mallows Model Averaging (MMA) criterion by Hansen (2007), we further propose a Shrinkage Mallows Model Averaging (SMMA) estimator for averaging high dimensional sparse models. Based on the Monte Carlo design by Wang et al. (2009) which features an expanding sparse parameter space as the sample size increases, our Monte Carlo design further considers the effect of the effective sample size and the degree of model sparsity on the finite sample performances of model selection and model averaging estimators. From our data examples, we find that the OLS post-SCAD(BIC) estimator in finite sample outperforms most of the current penalized least squares estimators as long as the number of parameters does not exceed the sample size. In addition, the SMMA performs better given sparser models. This supports the use of the SMMA estimator when averaging high dimensional sparse models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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