The spike-and-slab lasso and scalable algorithm to accommodate multinomial outcomes in variable selection problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spike-and-slab prior distributions are used to impose variable selection in Bayesian regression-style problems with many possible predictors. These priors are a mixture of two zero-centered distributions with differing variances, resulting in different shrinkage levels on parameter estimates based on whether they are relevant to the outcome. The spike-and-slab lasso assigns mixtures of double exponential distributions as priors for the parameters. This framework was initially developed for linear models, later developed for generalized linear models, and shown to perform well in scenarios requiring sparse solutions. Standard formulations of generalized linear models cannot immediately accommodate categorical outcomes with > 2 categories, i.e. multinomial outcomes, and require modifications to model specification and parameter estimation. Such modifications are relatively straightforward in a Classical setting but require additional theoretical and computational considerations in Bayesian settings, which can depend on the choice of prior distributions for the parameters of interest. While previous developments of the spike-and-slab lasso focused on continuous, count, and/or binary outcomes, we generalize the spike-and-slab lasso to accommodate multinomial outcomes, developing both the theoretical basis for the model and an expectation-maximization algorithm to fit the model. To our knowledge, this is the first generalization of the spike-and-slab lasso to allow for multinomial outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".