Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Nonparametric learning of heterogeneous graphical model on network-linked data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a network-aware score-matching estimator can exactly recover every node's conditional-independence graph, with high probability, without parametric distribution assumptions.

desk verdict A fresh method for network-linked heterogeneous graphical models, but the core score-matching lemma's boundary condition contradicts the compact-domain setup, so the exact-recovery theorems don't hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01473 v1 pith:3IVRXSWK submitted 2025-07-02 stat.ME stat.ML

Yuwen Wang , Changyu Liu , Xin He , Junhui Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.ML MSC 62H2262G05
keywords heterogeneousgraphicalmodelnetwork-linkeddatanonparametricgraphestimationscorematchingvector-valuedreproducingkernelHilbertspaceexactrecoverynetworkembeddingconditionalindependence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attacks a gap in graphical modeling: most methods for network-linked data either assume Gaussianity or estimate one common graph for all units. The proposed estimator lets the conditional-independence graph vary from unit to unit, borrowing strength across the network through latent embedding vectors. The central claim is that, when the true edge signals exceed a shrinking threshold, thresholding estimated second-derivative matrices recovers every unit's edge set exactly with high probability, all without specifying a parametric distribution. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns heterogeneous graph discovery on correlated, non-i.i.d. samples into a computable and provably consistent procedure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a vector-valued reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_K$ of functions from $\mathcal{X}_d \times \mathcal{X}_m$ to $\mathbb{R}^d$, generated by the decomposable kernel $K((x,\beta),(x',\beta')) = k_1(x,x')k_2(\beta,\beta')I_d$. Decomposability separates the variable space from the network-embedding space, so for each fixed $\beta$ the function $s(\cdot;\beta)$ lives in an RKHS over $\mathcal{X}_d$. The derivative-reproducing property of the kernel, together with the representer theorem, turns the empirical score-matching objective into the finite linear system $(F + n\lambda I_{nd})\hat{\beta} = h/\lambda$. The estimated graph is formed by thresholding $\hat{\Omega}^{(i)}_{jl} = n^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^n \big(\partial_j e_l^\top \hat{s}_\lambda(x_k; \hat{\beta}_i)\big)^2$ at a level $\delta_n$, and the gap assumption on $\Omega^{(i)}_{jl}$ lets the threshold separate true edges from non-edges.

What would settle it

Take $\mathcal{X}_d = [0,1]^d$ and a density $p_0(x;\beta)$ that is strictly positive on the boundary with a known conditional-independence graph, generate observations linked by a chain network, and run the method with $\delta_n$ set by its non-asymptotic rate; if Lemma 2's boundary integral is nonzero, the empirical objective separates from the Fisher divergence, and a direct calculation of that boundary term would settle whether the equivalence holds and whether the predicted exact-recovery probability $1-2a_n$ is attained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that heterogeneous conditional-independence structure over network-linked observations can be estimated and exactly recovered by combining network embedding with nonparametric score matching in a vector-valued RKHS. The reduction is that an edge $(j,l)$ is absent exactly when the mixed second derivative $\partial_j\partial_l \log p_0(x;\beta_i)$ vanishes almost surely, so the graph is encoded in the zero pattern of $\Omega^{(i)}_{jl} = \int_{\mathcal{X}_d} \big(\partial_j\partial_l \log p_0(x;\beta_i)\big)^2 p_0(x)\,dx$. The paper constructs an estimator of the score function $s_0(x;\beta)=\nabla_x \log p_0(x;\beta)$ in a vector-valued RKHS, derives a closed-form representer solution that solves a finite-dimensional linear system, and proves uniform consistency of the resulting score and second-derivative estimators across all nodes. Theorem 3 then states that with threshold $\delta_n=b_n$ and a gap condition $\inf_{(j,l)\in E^{(i)}} \Omega^{(i)}_{jl} > 2b_n$, every node's edge set is recovered exactly with probability at least $1-2a_n$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true densities $p_0(x;\beta)$ vanish at the boundary of the sampling region so the integration-by-parts boundary terms in score matching disappear; the paper sets the model on a compact domain without reconciling that with the vanishing condition, so if real densities carry boundary mass, the objective in (6) is no longer the Fisher divergence and the exact-recovery guarantee can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 3 is correct, practitioners can output one conditional-independence graph per network node together with a uniform high-probability exact-recovery guarantee, even for non-Gaussian data.
  • The exact-recovery guarantee holds simultaneously for all $n$ nodes, not just on average, because the consistency in Theorem 2 is in the matrix max norm.
  • Because the kernel is universal (Lemma 1(b)), any continuous score function can be approximated, so the method does not inherit a parametric-model misspecification error.
  • The closed-form linear system makes the method scalable: in the reported simulations, it stayed tractable at $(n,d) = (2000,1000)$ while some comparison methods timed out or failed.
  • The coauthorship analysis shows per-author term-association graphs with community-specific structure, which a single homogeneous graphical model cannot express.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the two-step construction implies that any network-embedding estimator satisfying the row-wise max-norm consistency condition (Assumption 1) can be plugged into the first step; spectral embeddings are used here, but likelihood-based or variational embeddings with the same rate should preserve the guarantees.
  • Beyond the paper, a chain network is a special case of a general network, so the method implicitly covers time-varying graphical models; the dynamic butterfly example demonstrates this, though the paper does not frame the method as a time-varying graph estimator.
  • Beyond the paper, the threshold $\delta_n=b_n$ depends on the unknown rate $b_n$ and gap lower bound; a data-driven threshold chosen by stability selection or per-node false-discovery control would be a natural extension to test against the paper's theoretical threshold.
  • Beyond the paper, the compact-domain boundary issue in Lemma 2 suggests a practical diagnostic: if estimated densities or kernel-weighted scores put substantial mass at the boundary, the score-matching objective is contaminated by a nonzero boundary term, and a boundary-corrected variant would be worth developing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a nonparametric method (NGM) for learning heterogeneous graphical models on network-linked data. Each node has its own density p0(x; beta_i) on a compact domain Xd, with beta_i a latent network embedding. The graph for node i is encoded by the zero pattern of second derivatives of log p0(x; beta_i), summarized by the integrated quantities Omega^(i)_jl in Eq. (3). Estimation proceeds in two steps: first estimate the embeddings beta_i from the network, then estimate the score function s0(x; beta) by minimizing a regularized empirical score-matching objective (6) in a vector-valued RKHS with kernel K = k1 k2 I_d. A representer theorem gives a closed-form linear system (7). The authors state Theorems 1-3 claiming uniform consistency of the estimated score and Omega matrices, and exact recovery of all node graphs with high probability, followed by simulations and a coauthorship data application. The main proofs are deferred to an appendix and an online supplement that are not included in the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If the theoretical results are correct, this is a useful contribution: it extends graphical model estimation to settings with one observation per node and heterogeneous, non-Gaussian structure, and it provides a computationally appealing closed-form solution via vector-valued RKHS. The exact-recovery guarantee in Theorem 3, conditional on a beta-min type condition, is a strong and practically relevant claim. The paper also demonstrates competitive performance in simulations and a real data example. However, the central score-matching equivalence used to justify the estimator has a boundary-term gap, and several load-bearing steps of the theory are deferred to materials not provided. Because these issues bear directly on whether the estimator is consistent for the true score, the contribution cannot be accepted in its current form; with a corrected boundary treatment and complete proofs, the significance could be substantial.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Lemma 2] The integration-by-parts step in Lemma 2 requires the boundary terms on the domain to vanish, but the model is stated on a compact set Xd in Section 2. The stated hypothesis that p0(x; beta) -> 0 as ||x||_2 -> infinity does not imply the surface integral over the boundary of Xd is zero; for example, a uniform density on [0,1]^d is supported on a compact set and satisfies the stated limit when extended by zero, yet p0 is positive on the boundary. In that case the population objective J(s) in Lemma 2 differs from the Fisher divergence by the nonzero boundary integral, so its minimizer is not necessarily the true score function s0. Since Lemma 2 is invoked by Theorems 1-3, the consistency and exact-recovery results inherit this gap. The authors should either impose an explicit vanishing-boundary condition on Xd and reconcile it with the compact-support setting, or adopt a boundary-corrected score-matching objective.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The definition of Omega^(i)_jl integrates the squared second derivative of log p0(x; beta_i) against the integrated marginal density p0(x) = (1/n) sum_k p0(x; beta_k). For the equivalence between conditional independence and the zero pattern of the derivative to be faithfully reflected in Omega^(i), the density p0(x) must be positive on the support of p0(x; beta_i) wherever the derivative can be nonzero. The manuscript does not state strict positivity or common support assumptions, so a nonzero derivative on a set where p0(x) = 0 would be invisible to the integral criterion. Please add and verify the needed support/positivity conditions.
  3. [Section 4, Theorem 1 and Section 3.2, Eq. (6)] The empirical objective (6) replaces each node-wise expectation E_beta_i in (5) with a single observation x_i. Standard RKHS regression consistency relies on either repeated observations at each design point or a design distribution in beta-space with sufficient local replication; with one sample per node, uniform consistency over i is a nontrivial requirement. Assumption 3 only postulates convergence of the operator C_B and does not by itself guarantee that every beta_i has enough nearby nodes for the kernel smoothing to recover s0(x; beta_i). The proof is deferred to an appendix and supplement that are not included, so this load-bearing step cannot be checked. Please state explicitly the design conditions (for example, a density for the empirical beta distribution, or replicated latent positions as in the SBM example) under which (6) is a valid surrogate for (5), and provide the verification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction, paragraph 2] There is a typo: 'newtork' should be 'network'.
  2. [Section 5.1, kernel definitions] In the implementation description, k1(x,x') = exp{-sigma^2 ||x-x'||_2^2} I_d and k2(beta,beta') = exp{-sigma^2 ||beta-beta'||_2^2} I_m are written as matrix-valued kernels, but in Eq. (4) k1 and k2 are scalar kernels and the identity matrix is supplied separately. Please correct the notation to avoid a mismatch.
  3. [Tables 1-3] Several entries in Tables 1-3 appear to be duplicated repeatedly (for example, repeated FPR values in the NGM rows), which makes the tables hard to read and should be cleaned.
  4. [Section 5.2, Figure 1] The figure caption states colors for community membership, but the color names ('green', 'red', 'blue') should be checked against the actual plotted colors and remain consistent with the text; also, 'penal' in the surrounding text should be 'panel'.
  5. [Section 5.2, data description] The text says each statistician is represented by a 300-dimensional vector but then refers to 'the same 55 terms as selected in Li et al. [2020]'; please clarify how the 300 terms are reduced to the 55 terms used in Figure 2.
  6. [Section 4.1, non-asymptotic result] The non-asymptotic statement in Section 4.1 introduces many constants (tau_2, tau_3, c_3, b_n) in a compressed way and the claimed probability bound is not derived in the main text; a complete derivation or a clear pointer to the supplement would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the graph estimator is a thresholded functional of a score function estimated from a kernel objective, with no fitted edge parameter reused as prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the method estimates the score function by minimizing the regularized empirical score-matching objective (6), whose population justification (Lemma 2) is the standard Hyvärinen identity, and the graph estimate is then a thresholded second-derivative functional of the estimated score, as defined after (6), rather than a re-use of any fitted edge parameter. Theorems 1–3 establish consistency and exact recovery under explicit assumptions (Assumptions 1–3, the separation condition in Theorem 3, and the choice δn = bn), and no equation defines the target graph in terms of the estimator. The only potentially self-referential citation is Zhang, He, and Wang (2022), used as one example of a consistent network embedding estimator, but it is not load-bearing because Assumption 1 only requires consistency and other external estimators are also cited. The compact-domain boundary condition in Lemma 2 is a possible proof gap — the stated condition p0(x; β) → 0 as ∥x∥2 → ∞ does not make boundary integrals vanish on ∂Xd when densities are supported on compact Xd — but this is a correctness or assumption concern, not circularity: the target graph structure is not an input to the score-matching objective. Overall, the central claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard RKHS and score-matching mathematics, plus three main domain assumptions: a latent embedding that controls both links and densities, a consistent embedding estimator, and operator convergence. The free parameters are kernel bandwidth, regularization strength, the edge threshold, and the embedding dimension. The invented entity is the latent beta_i, which is a modeling device rather than a measured quantity. No entity with an external falsifiable prediction is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Kernel bandwidth sigma = inverse median of all pairwise distances
    Gaussian kernel scaling for k1 and k2; chosen by a data-driven heuristic, not derived; affects the RKHS norm and all subsequent estimates.
  • Regularization parameter lambda = tuned via 5-fold cross-validation
    Controls the RKHS norm penalty in objective (6); selected empirically rather than derived.
  • Threshold delta_n = tuned via 5-fold cross-validation; theory sets delta_n = b_n
    Determines the estimated edge set from the estimated Omega values. Practice tunes it, while the theory requires a gap condition and a specific theoretical threshold.
  • Embedding dimension m = m communities in the SBM example; not specified for the real data
    Number of latent dimensions in beta; must be chosen before adjacency spectral embedding. The paper does not give a data-driven rule for this choice.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Conditional independence is equivalent to an almost surely zero second derivative of the log density (Dawid 1979).
    Used in equations (1) through (3); standard under regularity conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary condition p0(x; beta) tends to 0 as the norm of x tends to infinity.
    Lemma 2 requires this for the score-matching equivalence, but Section 2 assumes Xd is compact; the paper does not reconcile the two.
  • domain assumption Model (2): sigma(p_ij) = g(beta_i, beta_j) and p_i0(x) = p0(x; beta_i) with a shared latent beta_i.
    Assumes a single latent position drives both network link probabilities and the node-specific density; if false, node graphs need not be smooth in beta.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: a consistent estimate of B in the (2, infinity)-norm exists.
    Needed for uniform score consistency; satisfied by adjacency spectral embedding under SBM and RDPG, but not for general network models.
  • standard math Assumption 2: kernel smoothness and bounded derivative conditions.
    Ensures RKHS functions are differentiable and that errors from estimating beta can be controlled.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: CB converges to a compact operator C and PB(I-P) converges to 0 in strong operator topology.
    Controls approximation of s0 by the RKHS; only verified for SBM and RDPG examples, not for all network-linked data.
  • ad hoc to paper The integrated marginal density p0(x) = (1/n) sum_k p0(x; beta_k) has support covering all node supports so zero patterns of derivatives transfer to Omega.
    Omega^{(i)} integrates against p0, not p0(x; beta_i); without mutual absolute continuity, a derivative could be nonzero on other nodes' support and inflate Omega.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent network embedding vectors beta_i
    purpose: Couple network link probabilities and node densities via model (2).
    Postulated in model (2) and estimated from the observed network, for example by adjacency spectral embedding. The network provides same-data evidence only, not an independent falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonparametric learning of heterogeneous graphical model on network-linked data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3IVRXSWK

@misc{pith2026250701473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonparametric learning of heterogeneous graphical model on network-linked data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3IVRXSWK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01473}
}
read the original abstract

Graphical models have been popularly used for capturing conditional independence structure in multivariate data, which are often built upon independent and identically distributed observations, limiting their applicability to complex datasets such as network-linked data. This paper proposes a nonparametric graphical model that addresses these limitations by accommodating heterogeneous graph structures without imposing any specific distributional assumptions. The proposed estimation method effectively integrates network embedding with nonparametric graphical model estimation. It further transforms the graph learning task into solving a finite-dimensional linear equation system by leveraging the properties of vector-valued reproducing kernel Hilbert space. Moreover, theoretical guarantees are established for the proposed method in terms of the estimation consistency and exact recovery of the heterogeneous graph structures. Its effectiveness is also demonstrated through a variety of simulated examples and a real application to the statistician coauthorship dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimated Signal strengths of three selected statistical term pairs for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphical models of statistical terms for various leading statisticians. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Athreya, A., D. E. Fishkind, M. Tang, C. E. Priebe, Y. Park, J. T. Vogelstein, K. Levin, V. Lyzinski, Y. Qin, and D. L. Sussman (2018). Statistical inference on random dot product graphs: a survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 18\/ (226), 1--92

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Morrison, O

    Baptista, R., R. Morrison, O. Zahm, and Y. Marzouk (2024). Learning non- G aussian graphical models via H essian scores and triangular transport. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 25\/ (85), 1--46

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Caponnetto, A. and E. De Vito (2007). Optimal rates for the regularized least-squares algorithm. Foundations of Computational Mathematics,\/ 7\/ (3), 331--368

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Dawid, A. P. (1979). Conditional independence in statistical theory. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B,\/ 41\/ (1), 1--31

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    Hastie, and R

    Friedman, J., T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani (2008). Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. Biostatistics,\/ 9\/ (3), 432--441

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Hoff, P. D., A. E. Raftery, and M. S. Handcock (2002). Latent space approaches to social network analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association,\/ 97\/ (460), 1090--1098

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Hyv\" a rinen, A. (2005). Estimation of non-normalized statistical models by score matching. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 6 , 695--709

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Ji, P. and J. Jin (2016). Coauthorship and citation networks for statisticians. The Annals of Applied Statistics,\/ 10\/ (4), 1779--1812

    work page 2016

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Kimeldorf, G. and G. Wahba (1971). Some results on T chebycheffian spline functions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications,\/ 33\/ (1), 82--95

    1971

  2. [10]

    Kolar, M. and E. P. Xing (2011). On time varying undirected graphs. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pp.\ 407--415. PMLR

    2011

  3. [11]

    Lauritzen, S. L. (1996). Graphical models . Oxford Statistical Science Series. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York. Oxford Science Publications

    1996

  4. [12]

    Le, C. M. and T. Li (2022). Linear regression and its inference on noisy network-linked data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B,\/ 84\/ (5), 1851--1885

    2022

  5. [13]

    Xu, and J

    Li, J., G. Xu, and J. Zhu (2023). Statistical inference on latent space models for network data. arXiv preprint 2312.06605\/

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Levina, and J

    Li, T., E. Levina, and J. Zhu (2019). Prediction models for network-linked data. The Annals of Applied Statistics,\/ 13\/ (1), 132--164

    2019

  7. [15]

    Li, T., C. Qian, E. Levina, and J. Zhu (2020). High-dimensional G aussian graphical models on network-linked data. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 21\/ (74), 1--45

    2020

  8. [16]

    Lafferty, and L

    Liu, H., J. Lafferty, and L. Wasserman (2009). The nonparanormal: semiparametric estimation of high dimensional undirected graphs. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 10 , 2295--2328

    2009

  9. [17]

    Kolar, and H

    Lu, J., M. Kolar, and H. Liu (2018). Post-regularization inference for time-varying nonparanormal graphical models. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 18\/ (203), 1--78

    2018

  10. [18]

    Lyzinski, V., D. L. Sussman, M. Tang, A. Athreya, and C. E. Priebe (2014). Perfect clustering for stochastic blockmodel graphs via adjacency spectral embedding . Electronic Journal of Statistics,\/ 8\/ (2), 2905 -- 2922

    2014

  11. [19]

    Ma, and H

    Ma, Z., Z. Ma, and H. Yuan (2020). Universal latent space model fitting for large networks with edge covariates. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 21\/ (4), 1--67

    2020

  12. [20]

    Meinshausen, N. and P. B \"u hlmann (2006). High-dimensional graphs and variable selection with the Lasso . The Annals of Statistics,\/ 34\/ (3), 1436--1462

    2006

  13. [21]

    Fukumizu, A

    Sriperumbudur, B., K. Fukumizu, A. Gretton, A. Hyv\" a rinen, and R. Kumar (2017). Density estimation in infinite dimensional exponential families. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 18 , 1--59

    2017

  14. [22]

    Steinwart, I. and A. Christmann (2008). Support Vector Machines . Springer Science & Business Media

    2008

  15. [23]

    Tang, M., D. L. Sussman, and C. E. Priebe (2013). Universally consistent vertex classification for latent positions graphs. The Annals of Statistics,\/ 41\/ (3), 1406--1430

    2013

  16. [24]

    Yang, J. and J. Peng (2020). Estimating time-varying graphical models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics,\/ 29\/ (1), 191--202

    2020

  17. [25]

    Young, S. J. and E. R. Scheinerman (2007). Random dot product graph models for social networks. In International Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph , pp.\ 138--149. Springer

    2007

  18. [26]

    Yuan, M. and Y. Lin (2007). Model selection and estimation in the Gaussian graphical model . Biometrika,\/ 94\/ (1), 19--35

    2007

  19. [27]

    He, and J

    Zhang, J., X. He, and J. Wang (2022). Directed community detection with network embedding. Journal of the American Statistical Association,\/ 117\/ (540), 1809--1819

    2022

  20. [28]

    Xu, and J

    Zhang, X., G. Xu, and J. Zhu (2022). Joint latent space models for network data with high-dimensional node variables. Biometrika,\/ 109\/ (3), 707--720

    2022

  21. [29]

    Zhao, P. and B. Yu (2006). On model selection consistency of L asso. Journal of Machine Learning Research,\/ 7 , 2541--2563

    2006

  22. [30]

    Lafferty, and L

    Zhou, S., J. Lafferty, and L. Wasserman (2010). Time varying undirected graphs. Machine Learning,\/ 80 , 295--319

    2010

  23. [31]

    Shi, and J

    Zhou, Y., J. Shi, and J. Zhu (2020). Nonparametric score estimators. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp.\ 11513--11522. PMLR

    2020

  24. [32]

    Zou, H. (2006). The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association,\/ 101\/ (476), 1418--1429

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.