MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318764290 · doi:10.1093/jrsssb/qkad001

On inference in high-dimensional regression

2023· article· en· W4318764290 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Battey, Nancy Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRegression diagnosticMathematicsInferenceRegression analysisLasso (programming language)Linear regressionRegressionTransformation (genetics)Design matrixEconometricsSet (abstract data type)Feature selectionCross-sectional regressionStatisticsComputer sciencePolynomial regressionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology)Same topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207