ℓ1$$ {\ell}_1 $$‐Penalized Multinomial Regression: Estimation, Inference, and Prediction, With an Application to Risk Factor Identification for Different Dementia Subtypes
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
ABSTRACT High‐dimensional multinomial regression models are very useful in practice but have received less research attention than logistic regression models, especially from the perspective of statistical inference. In this work, we analyze the estimation and prediction error of the contrast‐based ‐penalized multinomial regression model and extend the debiasing method to the multinomial case, providing a valid confidence interval for each coefficient and value of the individual hypothesis test. We also examine cases of model misspecification and non‐identically distributed data to demonstrate the robustness of our method when some assumptions are violated. We apply the debiasing method to identify important predictors in the progression into dementia of different subtypes. Results from extensive simulations show the superiority of the debiasing method compared to other inference methods.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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