MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182878663 · doi:10.1093/imaiai/iaaf019

Performance of Bayesian linear regression in a model with mismatch

2025· article· en· W3182878663 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation and Inference A Journal of the IMA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBayesian linear regressionBayesian multivariate linear regressionBayesian probabilityLinear regressionProper linear modelRegressionStatisticsLinear modelRegression analysisEconometricsGeneral linear modelComputer scienceMathematicsBayesian inference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we analyse, for a model of linear regression with Gaussian covariates, the high-dimensional limit of the performance of a Bayesian estimator given by the mean of a log-concave posterior distribution with Gaussian prior. Although high-dimensional analysis of Bayesian estimators has been previously studied for Bayesian-optimal linear regression where the correct posterior is used for inference, much less is known when there is a mismatch. Here we consider a model in which the responses are known to be generated as linear combinations of the covariates but the distribution of the ground-truth regression coefficients and the Gaussian noise’s variance are unknown. This regression task can be rephrased as a statistical mechanics model known as the Gardner spin glass, an analogy that we exploit. Using a leave-one-out approach we characterize the mean square error for the regression coefficients. We also derive the log-normalizing constant of the posterior. Similar models have been studied by Shcherbina and Tirozzi and by Talagrand, but our arguments are much more straightforward. An interesting consequence of our analysis is that in the quadratic loss case, the performance of the Bayesian estimator is independent of a global ‘temperature’ hyperparameter and matches the ridge estimator: sampling and optimizing are equally good. Instead, for the absolute value loss, there is an optimal finite temperature to select, which allows the Bayesian estimator to beat the corresponding M-estimator.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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