Debiased lasso after sample splitting for estimation and inference in high‐dimensional generalized linear models
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
We consider random sample splitting for estimation and inference in high dimensional generalized linear models, where we first apply the lasso to select a submodel using one subsample and then apply the debiased lasso to fit the selected model using the remaining subsample. We show that a sample splitting procedure based on the debiased lasso yields asymptotically normal estimates under mild conditions and that multiple splitting can address the loss of efficiency. Our simulation results indicate that using the debiased lasso instead of the standard maximum likelihood method in the estimation stage can vastly reduce the bias and variance of the resulting estimates. Furthermore, our multiple splitting debiased lasso method has better numerical performance than some existing methods for high dimensional generalized linear models proposed in the recent literature. We illustrate the proposed multiple splitting method with an analysis of the smoking data of the Mid-South Tobacco Case-Control Study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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