Square Root LASSO: Well-Posedness, Lipschitz Stability, and the Tuning Trade-Off
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper studies well-posedness and parameter sensitivity of the square root LASSO (SR-LASSO), an optimization model for recovering sparse solutions to linear inverse problems in finite dimension. An advantage of the SR-LASSO (e.g., over the standard LASSO) is that the optimal tuning of the regularization parameter is robust with respect to measurement noise. This paper provides three point-based regularity conditions at a solution of the SR-LASSO: the weak, intermediate, and strong assumptions. It is shown that the weak assumption implies uniqueness of the solution in question. The intermediate assumption yields a directionally differentiable and locally Lipschitz solution map (with explicit Lipschitz bounds), whereas the strong assumption gives continuous differentiability of said map around the point in question. Our analysis leads to new theoretical insights on the comparison between SR-LASSO and LASSO from the viewpoint of tuning parameter sensitivity: noise-robust optimal parameter choice for SR-LASSO comes at the “price” of elevated tuning parameter sensitivity. Numerical results support and showcase the theoretical findings.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".