pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00847 · v1 · pith:7BJYJL26new · submitted 2026-07-01 · 📊 stat.ME · stat.CO

Transfert learning and adaptive LASSO quantile

Gabriela Ciuperca This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 08:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ME stat.CO
keywords transfer learningadaptive LASSOquantile regressionconsistencysparsityhigh-dimensional datanon-Gaussian errors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Transfer learning with two L1 penalties yields consistent and sparse quantile regression estimators from a source database.

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

The paper proposes a transfer learning method for quantile regression that incorporates knowledge from a source database through two L1 penalties in the target model. This approach aims to achieve consistency and sparsity while reducing computation time compared to standard adaptive LASSO. A sympathetic reader would care because it enables effective estimation in scenarios with limited target data but related source information, and it handles non-Gaussian errors common in real applications. Simulations and a real-data example on protein structures support its advantages.

Core claim

The central claim is that the proposed transfer learning estimator for quantile regression, defined using two L1 penalties based on a source database estimator, satisfies consistency and sparsity properties, with convergence rates and asymptotic behavior analyzed in multiple scenarios. The method is faster to compute than the standard adaptive LASSO and applies to non-Gaussian error models, supported by an algorithm, simulations showing competitiveness, and a real-data application.

What carries the argument

The adaptive transfer LASSO quantile estimator, which defines two L1 penalties from a source estimator to transfer knowledge to the target quantile regression model, enforcing sparsity and enabling consistency.

If this is right

  • The estimator is consistent and sparse.
  • It has studied convergence rates and asymptotic behavior in several scenarios.
  • It requires shorter computation time than the standard adaptive LASSO estimator.
  • It applies to models with non-Gaussian errors.
  • Simulations confirm the theoretical results and show it is more competitive than LASSO estimators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This transfer mechanism could extend to other penalized regression problems if the source-target structure sharing holds.
  • Gains would likely be largest in high-dimensional settings with scarce target samples but abundant related source data.
  • Testing performance decay as source-target similarity decreases would clarify practical boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

An estimator obtained from the source database can be directly used to define the two L1 penalties for the target quantile regression model, assuming the source and target share sufficient structure for the transfer to be valid.

What would settle it

A simulation or empirical case where the source and target distributions differ substantially, yet the transfer estimator fails to attain the predicted convergence rates or sparsity, would falsify the central claims.

read the original abstract

We propose for a quantile regression an estimation method for transferring knowledge using two $L_1$ penalties based on an estimator obtained from a source database. The proposed transfer learning estimator satisfies the properties of consistency and sparsity. Its convergence rate and asymptotic behavior are studied in several scenarios. This knowledge transfer results in a shorter computation time than that of the standard adaptive LASSO estimator. Another advantage of our method is that it can be applied to models with non-Gaussian errors. In addition, in order to implement the computing of the adaptive transfer LASSO quantile estimator, we propose an algorithm. The simulations confirm the theoretical results and demonstrate that the adaptive learning estimator, calculated using the proposed algorithm, is more competitive than the LASSO estimators. Finally, we illustrate the practical utility of the proposed transfer learning estimator and algorithm using a real-data application involving the physicochemical properties of protein tertiary structures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a transfer learning estimator for quantile regression that incorporates two L1 penalties constructed from an estimator obtained on a source database. It claims that this estimator achieves consistency and sparsity, derives its convergence rate and asymptotic behavior under several scenarios, provides a dedicated algorithm for computation, notes advantages in runtime and applicability to non-Gaussian errors relative to standard adaptive LASSO, and supports the claims via simulations and a real-data example on protein tertiary structure properties.

Significance. If the claimed rates and oracle properties hold under verifiable conditions on source-target discrepancy, the approach would provide a computationally lighter alternative for high-dimensional quantile regression that exploits auxiliary data while preserving the non-Gaussian robustness of quantile methods. The inclusion of an explicit algorithm and empirical comparisons are positive features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and introduction: the central claim that the two-penalty transfer estimator inherits the oracle property of adaptive LASSO for quantiles rests on the unstated assumption that the source estimator is sufficiently close to the target coefficients. No explicit rate condition on ||β̂_source − β_target|| or on the difference between the source and target conditional quantile functions is supplied; without such a bound the claimed consistency and sparsity rates may fail when the shared-structure assumption is only moderately violated.
  2. [Theoretical results] Theoretical results section (presumed §3–4): the convergence rates and asymptotic normality statements are asserted for “several scenarios,” yet the manuscript supplies no derivation steps or proof sketches that would allow verification that the adaptive weights constructed from the source estimator satisfy the standard conditions (e.g., the irrepresentable condition or the rate requirements on the penalty weights) needed for the oracle property in quantile regression.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typographical error (“Transfert” instead of “Transfer”).
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method “can be applied to models with non-Gaussian errors,” but does not clarify whether this is a distinctive advantage over ordinary adaptive LASSO quantile regression or simply a restatement of the quantile framework.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, indicating the revisions we plan to make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Introduction] Abstract and introduction: the central claim that the two-penalty transfer estimator inherits the oracle property of adaptive LASSO for quantiles rests on the unstated assumption that the source estimator is sufficiently close to the target coefficients. No explicit rate condition on ||β̂_source − β_target|| or on the difference between the source and target conditional quantile functions is supplied; without such a bound the claimed consistency and sparsity rates may fail when the shared-structure assumption is only moderately violated.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit condition on the proximity of the source estimator to the target coefficients is necessary for the oracle property to hold. In the revised manuscript, we will introduce a precise rate condition on ||β̂_source − β_target|| and on the difference between the source and target conditional quantile functions. This will clarify the scenarios under which the consistency and sparsity results are valid, particularly when the shared-structure assumption holds to a sufficient degree. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theoretical results] Theoretical results section (presumed §3–4): the convergence rates and asymptotic normality statements are asserted for “several scenarios,” yet the manuscript supplies no derivation steps or proof sketches that would allow verification that the adaptive weights constructed from the source estimator satisfy the standard conditions (e.g., the irrepresentable condition or the rate requirements on the penalty weights) needed for the oracle property in quantile regression.

    Authors: The theoretical results are derived under several scenarios in Sections 3 and 4, but we acknowledge that the manuscript would benefit from additional details on how the adaptive weights satisfy the required conditions such as the irrepresentable condition. In the revision, we will add key derivation steps and proof sketches, either in the main text or an appendix, to facilitate verification of the asymptotic normality and convergence rates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: abstract states properties are studied without exhibiting any derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The provided abstract describes a transfer-learning quantile estimator that uses a source-database estimator to define two L1 penalties, then asserts that consistency, sparsity, convergence rates and asymptotic behavior are studied in several scenarios. No equations, fitted quantities, self-citations, or derivation steps appear in the text. Without any explicit reduction (e.g., a claimed rate shown to equal a quantity defined from the source estimator itself), no load-bearing circular step can be exhibited. The reader's note that the abstract supplies no equations confirms that inspection is impossible; the honest finding is therefore zero circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, preventing identification of specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The approach likely depends on standard assumptions for LASSO consistency, sparsity, and transfer learning (source-target similarity) that are not detailed here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5670 in / 1062 out tokens · 28913 ms · 2026-07-02T08:37:26.047567+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ciuperca, G. (2016). Adaptive LASSO model selection in a multiphase quantile regression. Statistics , 50 (5), 1100--1131

    2016

  2. [2]

    Adaptive group LASSO selection in quantile models

    Ciuperca, G., (2019). Adaptive group LASSO selection in quantile models. Statist. Papers , 60(1), 173--197

    2019

  3. [3]

    Automatic variable selection in a linear model on massive data

    Ciuperca, G., (2022). Automatic variable selection in a linear model on massive data. Comm. Statist. Simulation Comput. , 51(9), 4937--4956

    2022

  4. [4]

    Adaptive robust variable selection

    Fan J., Fan Y., Barut E., (2014). Adaptive robust variable selection. Ann. Statist. , 42 (1), 324-351

    2014

  5. [5]

    Robust angle-based transfer learning in high dimensions

    Gu, T., Han, Y., Duan, R., (2025). Robust angle-based transfer learning in high dimensions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. , 87(3), 723--745

    2025

  6. [6]

    Z., (2026)

    Hou, J., Meng, T., Tian, M. Z., (2026). Hierarchical composite quantile regression with adaptive Lasso. J. Statist. Plann. Inference , 245, Paper No. 106390, 20 pp

    2026

  7. [7]

    Estimation and inference for transfer learning with high-dimensional quantile regression

    Huang, J., Wang, M., Wu, Y., (2022). Estimation and inference for transfer learning with high-dimensional quantile regression. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14578

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Weighted l_1 -penalized corrected quantile regression for high dimensional measurement error models

    Kaul, A., Koul, H.L., (2015). Weighted l_1 -penalized corrected quantile regression for high dimensional measurement error models. J. Multivariate Anal., 140, 72--91

    2015

  9. [9]

    Quantile Regression

    Koenker, R., (2005). Quantile Regression . Cambridge University Press

    2005

  10. [10]

    H., Chen, K

    Jin, J., Yan, J., Aseltine, R. H., Chen, K. , (2024). Transfer learning with large-scale quantile regression. Technometrics , 66(3), 381--393

    2024

  11. [11]

    Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: prediction, estimation and minimax optimality

    Li, S., Cai, T.T., Li, H., (2022). Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: prediction, estimation and minimax optimality. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. , 84(1), 149--173

    2022

  12. [12]

    T., Li, H., (2024)

    Li, S., Zhang, L., Cai, T. T., Li, H., (2024). Estimation and inference for high-dimensional generalized linear models with knowledge transfer. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 119 (546), 1274--1285

    2024

  13. [13]

    Transfer learning for high-dimensional expectile regression

    Liu, J., Song, Y., (2025). Transfer learning for high-dimensional expectile regression. Comm. Statist. Simulation Comput. , https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2025.2578277, 1--22

    work page doi:10.1080/03610918.2025.2578277 2025

  14. [14]

    Transfer learning for high-dimensional quantile regression with statistical guarantee

    Qiao, S., He, Y., Zhou, W.X., (2024). Transfer learning for high-dimensional quantile regression with statistical guarantee. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. , 2024, 1--44

    2024

  15. [15]

    Automatic transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression

    Qu, X., (2025). Automatic transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression. Statist. Probab. Lett. , 224, Paper No. 110445, 6

    2025

  16. [16]

    Transfer Learning via l _1 Regularization

    Takada, M., Fujisawa, H., (2020). Transfer Learning via l _1 Regularization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS2020) , 33, 14266--14277

    2020

  17. [17]

    Adaptive Lasso, transfer Lasso, and beyond: an asymptotic perspective

    Takada, M., Fujisawa, H., (2024). Adaptive Lasso, transfer Lasso, and beyond: an asymptotic perspective. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15838v2

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models

    Tian, Y., Feng, Y., (2023). transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 118 (544), 2684--2697

    2023

  19. [19]

    Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization

    Tseng, P., (2001). Convergence of a block coordinate descent method for nondifferentiable minimization. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 109 (3), 475--494

    2001

  20. [20]

    Transfer learning for high-dimensional quantile regression via convolution smoothing

    Zhang, Y., Zhu, Z., (2025). Transfer learning for high-dimensional quantile regression via convolution smoothing. Statist. Sinica , 35 (2), 939--958

    2025

  21. [21]

    Adaptive penalized quantile regression for high dimensional data

    Zheng, Q., Gallagher, C., Kulasekera, K.B., (2013). Adaptive penalized quantile regression for high dimensional data. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 143, 1029--1038

    2013

  22. [22]

    The adaptive Lasso and its oracle properties

    Zou, H., 2006. The adaptive Lasso and its oracle properties. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 101 (476), 1418--1428

    2006

  23. [23]

    Composite quantile regression and the oracle model selection theory

    Zou, H., Yuan, M., (2008). Composite quantile regression and the oracle model selection theory. Ann. Statist. , 36 (3), 1108--1126

    2008

  24. [24]

    Double debiased transfer learning for adaptive Huber regression

    Wang, Z., Wang, L., Lian, H., (2024). Double debiased transfer learning for adaptive Huber regression. Scand. J. Stat. , 51(4), 1472–1505

    2024

  25. [25]

    Adaptive group LASSO selection in quantile models

    Ciuperca, G., (2018). Adaptive group LASSO selection in quantile models. In press to Statistical Papers, DOI: 10.1007/s00362-016--0832-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00362-016--0832-1 2018

  26. [26]

    Adaptive LASSO model selection in a multiphase quantile regression

    Ciuperca, G., (2016). Adaptive LASSO model selection in a multiphase quantile regression. Statistics , 50 (5), 1100--1131

    2016

  27. [27]

    High-dimensional generalizations of asymmetric least squares regression and their applications

    Gu, Y., Zou, H., (2016). High-dimensional generalizations of asymmetric least squares regression and their applications. The Annals of Statistics , 44(6), 2661--2694

    2016

  28. [28]

    Penalized expectile regression: an alternative to penalized quantile regression

    Liao, L., Park, C., Choi, H., (2018). Penalized expectile regression: an alternative to penalized quantile regression. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , https://doi.org/10.1007/s10463-018-0645-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10463-018-0645-1 2018

  29. [29]

    Asymmetric least squares estimation and testing

    Newey, W.K., Powell, J.L., (1987). Asymmetric least squares estimation and testing. Econometrica , 55(4), 818--847

    1987

  30. [30]

    Expectile regression for analyzing heteroscedasticity in high dimension

    Zhao, J., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., (2018). Expectile regression for analyzing heteroscedasticity in high dimension. Statistics and Probability Letters , 137, 304--311. equation ea3a split & _j=\\ & | _j| | _j - _ m,j | ^ m+n _ i=m+1 X_ ji ( - 1_ Y_i < _ -j,i ^ _ -j ) + _n _ m,j _ m,j | _j| _n v_ m,j | _j - _ m,j | + _n _ m,j | _j| split equation

    2018