Cross-Validated Loss-based Covariance Matrix Estimator Selection in High Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The covariance matrix plays a fundamental role in many modern exploratory and inferential statistical procedures, including dimensionality reduction, hypothesis testing, and regression. In low-dimensional regimes, where the number of observations far exceeds the number of variables, the optimality of the sample covariance matrix as an estimator of this parameter is well-established. High-dimensional regimes do not admit such a convenience. Thus, a variety of estimators have been derived to overcome the shortcomings of the canonical estimator in such settings. Yet, selecting an optimal estimator from among the plethora available remains an open challenge. Using the framework of cross-validated loss-based estimation, we develop the theoretical underpinnings of just such an estimator selection procedure. We propose a general class of loss functions for covariance matrix estimation and establish accompanying finite-sample risk bounds and conditions for the asymptotic optimality of the cross-validation selector. In numerical experiments, we demonstrate the optimality of our proposed selector in moderate sample sizes and across diverse data-generating processes. The practical benefits of our procedure are highlighted in a dimension reduction application to single-cell transcriptome sequencing data.
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 | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".