Response best-subset selector for multivariate regression with high-dimensional response variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article investigates the statistical problem of response-variable selection with high-dimensional response variables and a diverging number of predictor variables with respect to the sample size in the framework of multivariate linear regression. A response best-subset selection model is proposed by introducing a 0-1 selection indicator for each response variable, and then a response best-subset selector is developed by introducing a separation parameter and a novel penalized least-squares function. The proposed procedure can perform response-variable selection and regression-coefficient estimation simultaneously, and the response best-subset selector has the property of model consistency under mild conditions for both fixed and diverging numbers of predictor variables. Also, consistency and asymptotic normality of regression-coefficient estimators are established for cases with a fixed dimension, and it is found that the Bonferroni test is a special response best-subset selector. Finite-sample simulations show that the response best-subset selector has strong advantages over existing competitors in terms of the Matthews correlation coefficient, a criterion that aims to balance accuracies for both true and false response variables. An analysis of real data demonstrates the effectiveness of the response best-subset selector in an application involving the identification of dosage-sensitive genes.
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 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".