Regularized regression can improve estimates of multivariate selection in the face of multicollinearity and limited data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The breeder’s equation, Δz¯=Gβ , allows us to understand how genetics (the genetic covariance matrix, G) and the vector of linear selection gradients β interact to generate evolutionary trajectories. Estimation of β using multiple regression of trait values on relative fitness revolutionized the way we study selection in laboratory and wild populations. However, multicollinearity, or correlation of predictors, can lead to very high variances of and covariances between elements of β, posing a challenge for the interpretation of the parameter estimates. This is particularly relevant in the era of big data, where the number of predictors may approach or exceed the number of observations. A common approach to multicollinear predictors is to discard some of them, thereby losing any information that might be gained from those traits. Using simulations, we show how, on the one hand, multicollinearity can result in inaccurate estimates of selection, and, on the other, how the removal of correlated phenotypes from the analyses can provide a misguided view of the targets of selection. We show that regularized regression, which places data-validated constraints on the magnitudes of individual elements of β, can produce more accurate estimates of the total strength and direction of multivariate selection in the presence of multicollinearity and limited data, and often has little cost when multicollinearity is low. We also compare standard and regularized regression estimates of selection in a reanalysis of three published case studies, showing that regularized regression can improve fitness predictions in independent data. Our results suggest that regularized regression is a valuable tool that can be used as an important complement to traditional least-squares estimates of selection. In some cases, its use can lead to improved predictions of individual fitness, and improved estimates of the total strength and direction of multivariate selection.
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 | 0.020 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".