On inference in high-dimensional regression
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
Abstract This paper develops an approach to inference in a linear regression model when the number of potential explanatory variables is larger than the sample size. The approach treats each regression coefficient in turn as the interest parameter, the remaining coefficients being nuisance parameters, and seeks an optimal interest-respecting transformation, inducing sparsity on the relevant blocks of the notional Fisher information matrix. The induced sparsity is exploited through a marginal least-squares analysis for each variable, as in a factorial experiment, thereby avoiding penalization. One parameterization of the problem is found to be particularly convenient, both computationally and mathematically. In particular, it permits an analytic solution to the optimal transformation problem, facilitating theoretical analysis and comparison to other work. In contrast to regularized regression, such as the lasso and its extensions, neither adjustment for selection nor rescaling of the explanatory variables is needed, ensuring the physical interpretation of regression coefficients is retained. Recommended usage is within a broader set of inferential statements, so as to reflect uncertainty over the model as well as over the parameters. The considerations involved in extending the work to other regression models are briefly discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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