Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Method of Contraction-Expansion (MOCE) for Simultaneous Inference in Linear Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a contraction-then-expansion debiasing scheme gives valid simultaneous post-LASSO inference under weaker sparsity than standard debiased Lasso, with a block-ridge inverse replacing precision-matrix estimation.

desk verdict MOCE is a clever debiasing construction with real computational appeal, but the paper's central asymptotic normality claim is not established: Lemma 4.1's own bound only gives o_p(1), not o_p(1/√n), under the stated sparsity and τ_a conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01253 v1 pith:VFLEXWE2 submitted 2019-08-04 stat.ML cs.LGmath.STstat.TH

Fei Wang , Ling Zhou , Lu Tang , Peter X.-K. Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGmath.STstat.TH
keywords MOCEpost-modelselectioninferencehigh-dimensionallinearregressionLASSOdebiasingsimultaneousconfidenceregionsridgeregularizationWald-typetest
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

The paper proposes MOCE, a method for simultaneous inference on a set of regression coefficients in high-dimensional linear models after LASSO model selection. Instead of estimating the precision matrix, MOCE first contracts the model with LASSO, then expands the selected set to include weak signals, and debiases using a block ridge inverse. The paper claims this yields asymptotic normality under sparsity $a = o(n/\log p)$, which is weaker than the super-sparsity $a = o(\sqrt n/\log p)$ often required, and gives lower mean squared error and far lower computational cost than existing low-dimensional projection methods. A new Wald-type test statistic is introduced for testing a group of parameters, with type I error controlled even when the group size grows proportionally with $n$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MOCE estimator $\hat\beta_\tau = \hat\beta_\lambda + \lambda L_\tau^{-1}\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is the subgradient from the LASSO KKT conditions and $L_\tau$ is the lower block-triangular matrix $\begin{pmatrix} \hat\Sigma_{\tilde A\tilde A} & 0 \\ S_{\tilde A^c\tilde A} & \hat\Sigma_{\tilde A^c\tilde A} \end{pmatrix}$, built from ridge-adjusted sample covariance blocks rather than a full precision-matrix estimate. The expansion step chooses a larger model $\tilde A$ so that the bias remainder terms $r_a$ and $r_c$ are $o_p(1/\sqrt n)$, and the triangular form means the estimate on $\tilde A^c$ does not feed back into the estimate on $\tilde A$.

What would settle it

Simulate Gaussian linear models at the boundary $a = c n/\log p$ with weak signals of size $\lambda_s\sigma$, run MOCE with $\tau_a = o(\sqrt{\log p/n})$, and check whether 95% confidence regions for random sparse contrasts $d$ keep empirical coverage near 0.95 and the standardized statistic tracks $N(0,1)$; systematic undercoverage would show the missing $o_p(1/\sqrt n)$ condition is essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Gaussian or suitably regular errors, and for a size-$\tilde a$ expanded model satisfying assumptions on the design matrix and on the strength of missed signals, the MOCE estimator $\hat\beta_\tau = \hat\beta_\lambda + \lambda L_\tau^{-1}\kappa$ satisfies $\sqrt n\, v^{-1} d^T(\hat\beta_\tau - \beta^*) = n^{-1/2} v^{-1} d^T L_\tau^{-1} X^T\epsilon + o_p(1)$, where the leading term is standard normal. This distributional result is used to construct simultaneous confidence regions for sparse contrasts and to justify the proposed Wald-type test. The paper also establishes that the variances of estimators for parameters inside the expanded model are separated from those outside it, so confidence intervals for signals are wider than those for nulls, a feature the paper argues improves coverage compared with low-dimensional projection methods.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the debiasing remainder vanishes at $o_p(1/\sqrt n)$ uses a bound that only yields $o_p(1)$ when the sparsity $a$ is as large as $n/\log p$; asymptotic normality therefore rests on an unstated stronger sparsity condition or a smaller ridge tuning than Theorem 5.1 explicitly allows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simultaneous confidence regions can be built without estimating the precision matrix, under sparsity $a = o(n/\log p)$ instead of $a = o(\sqrt n/\log p)$.
  • Confidence intervals for nonzero signals can be wider than those for zero signals, which the paper argues improves coverage and type I error relative to low-dimensional projection methods.
  • Computational cost is $O(n(p-\tilde a)^2)$, versus $O(2np^2)$ for node-wise LASSO debiasing, with simulations showing hundreds-fold speedups.
  • The proposed test $W_{bs}$ controls type I error when the tested group size $g$ satisfies $g/n \to \gamma \in (0,1)$, a regime where the classical Wald statistic fails.
  • The $\ell_2$-norm error bound of the MOCE estimator on the expanded model is $O_p(\sqrt{\tilde a\log\tilde a/n})$, lower than the $O_p(\sqrt{ap/n})$ bound of low-dimensional projection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the missing $o_p(1/\sqrt n)$ condition is genuinely needed, the practical relaxation of super-sparsity may only hold for models substantially sparser than $a = n/\log p$, and the advertised boundary would need re-stating.
  • The lower block-triangular structure suggests a sequential debiasing recursion that might extend to multi-stage model building or to grouped inference beyond a single expanded model.
  • The variance separation between expanded and non-expanded parameters suggests a principled way to weight parameters in group tests, though the paper does not develop that weighting rule.
  • The expansion step is not tied to LASSO in principle, so the same contraction-expansion scheme could be tested with other selection rules that provide a ranking of predictors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOCE, a post-model-selection inference method for high-dimensional linear regression. After a LASSO 'contraction' step selects an initial model, an 'expansion' step constructs a larger model, and a ridge-type approximation to the precision matrix is used to debias the LASSO estimator on the expanded model and its complement. The main theoretical results are Lemma 4.1, claiming that the debiasing remainders are o_p(n^{-1/2}), and Theorems 5.1-5.2, claiming asymptotic normality of any bounded-support linear functional of the MOCE estimator under sparsity a = o(n/log p). The paper also proposes a Wald-type simultaneous test W_bs in Theorem 5.3 and reports simulations comparing MOCE with the LDP method. The central selling point is that MOCE relaxes the super-sparsity assumption while retaining valid simultaneous inference at low computational cost.

Significance. If the theory were correct, the MOCE idea would be an attractive contribution: replacing node-wise LASSO precision estimation with a ridge-type inverse on an expanded model is computationally inexpensive, and the method explicitly allows different variances for signal and null parameters. The simulation study is detailed and documents favorable coverage and runtime comparisons against the LDP method. However, the central distributional result is not established as stated: the proof of Lemma 4.1 contains a rate error, Theorem 5.3 is proved only by invoking an inapplicable fixed-dimensional result and a sketchy appeal to Bai and Saranadasa, and the expansion algorithm is not shown to deliver the assumptions on which the theory rests. Because these issues affect the main claims of the paper, I cannot recommend acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, proof of Lemma 4.1, Eq. (4.6)] The bound for the term I_11 has a rate error. The proof gives ||I_11||_2 <= |\hat\Sigma_{\tilde A\tilde A}^{-1} \tau_a|_\infty ||\hat\beta_{\tilde A} - \beta^*_{\tilde A}||_1 = O_p(\rho^+_{\max}(\tau_a) a \sqrt{\log p / n}). Under the stated condition \rho^+_{\max}(\tau_a) = o(\sqrt{\log p / n}), this is o_p(a \log p / n), and the stated sparsity a = o(n/\log p) yields only o_p(1), not o_p(1/\sqrt n). For example, taking a = n/(\log p \cdot \log\log n) and \tau_a = (\log\log n)^{-3/4} \sqrt{\log p / n} satisfies the assumptions, but the displayed bound is (\log\log n)^{-7/4}, so \sqrt n times it diverges. Since Lemma 4.1 supplies the remainders r_a and r_c used in Theorem 5.1, the central asymptotic normality result and the simultaneous confidence regions built on it are not established.
  2. [§5.5, Theorem 5.3] The proof of Theorem 5.3 is not sufficient. It states that 'Theorem 5.1 implies \sqrt n(\hat\beta_{\tau G} - \beta_{0,G}) \to N(0, \sigma^2 \hat\Sigma^*_{GG})', but Theorem 5.1 is proved only for a fixed projection vector d \in M_m with bounded support size m. In Theorem 5.3 the group G has |G| = g with g/n \to \gamma \in (0,1), so the subvector \hat\beta_{\tau G} has growing dimension. The subsequent appeal to Bai and Saranadasa (1996) does not verify their conditions in this regression setting, and the displayed variance formula 'var(M2)' is asserted without derivation. Therefore the proposed test statistic W_bs is not shown to be asymptotically N(0,1).
  3. [§4.2 and Assumptions 3-4] The abstract claims that the expanded model 'can be selected with theoretical guarantees', but no theorem connects the proposed construction of \tilde A (the threshold \lambda_a and the noise-injection step) to Assumptions 3 and 4. Assumption 3 is a condition on the unknown true coefficients on the unobserved set \tilde A^c \cap A_s, and Assumption 4 is a condition on the LASSO estimator on \tilde A^c \cap \hat A; both are used directly in the proof of Lemma 4.1. Moreover, because \tilde A is data-dependent, the Gaussianity of the leading term in Theorem 5.1 requires either conditioning on \tilde A or a uniformity argument, neither of which is supplied. Without a proof that the expansion algorithm produces an \tilde A satisfying these assumptions, the theorems are conditional on properties that the procedure is not shown to deliver.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The sentence 'If \rho^+_{\max}(\tau_a) = o(\sqrt{\log p / n}) holds, Lemma 4.1 shows that \|r_a\|_2 = o_p(1/\sqrt n)' appears before Lemma 4.1 is stated and uses a condition that is not sufficient for the claimed conclusion; please align the text with the actual hypothesis of the lemma.
  2. [§5.5, proof of Theorem 5.3] The expression 'var(M2)' appears to be a typo for 'var(M_n)', and the variance formula should be derived rather than asserted.
  3. [Title page] The MSC codes are listed as 60K35 for both primary and secondary classifications, which is not appropriate for a statistics methodology paper; the authors should provide the correct subject classifications.
  4. [§6.1] The simulation setup uses a = 3 and n = 200, far from the regime a = o(n/\log p) featured in the theorems; an experiment with larger a would make the claimed relaxation of the sparsity assumption more credible.
  5. [§4.2 and proof of Lemma 4.1] The proof of Lemma 4.1 attributes the LASSO \ell_1 error bound to 'Lemma 3.1 with \tilde a < n', but Lemma 3.1 concerns only the size of \hat\Sigma_{\tilde A\tilde A}^{-1}\tau_a; the standard LASSO bound for \|\hat\beta_{\tilde A} - \beta^*_{\tilde A}\|_1 under Assumption 1 should be stated explicitly and proved or cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MOCE distributional results follow from the KKT conditions and standard LASSO bounds rather than from the paper's own conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 5.1, which asserts an asymptotic normal representation for the MOCE estimator. The derivation chain is: (i) the LASSO KKT condition (1.3) is algebraically rewritten as (4.4) and (4.7); (ii) the remainder terms r_a and r_c are bounded in Lemma 4.1 using Assumptions 1-4, Lemma 3.1 on the ridge-type inverse, and standard LASSO l1 error rates; (iii) Theorem 5.1 then follows from the Gaussian error assumption (Assumption 5). The leading term (1/sqrt(n)) v^{-1} d^T L_tau^{-1} X^T epsilon is exactly the Gaussian linear term produced by the KKT algebra, not a fitted parameter or a restatement of the theorem's assumptions. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. No load-bearing result is imported from the authors' own prior work: the cited results are external (e.g., Bickel et al. for restricted eigenvalues, Donoho and Johnstone for threshold order, Zhang and Zhang for LDP comparisons, Bai and Saranadasa for the test statistic). The paper does not cite a uniqueness theorem from its own authors to force its choice. Assumptions 3 and 4 describe conditions on the expanded model and unknown signals; these are identification-type assumptions, not circular constructions of the stated normal limit. The reader's and skeptic's concern that the bound for I11 in Lemma 4.1 is only o_p(1) rather than o_p(1/sqrt(n)) under the stated sparsity and tau_a rates is a legitimate technical gap in the proof, but it is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the claimed theorem would be unproven or would require stronger assumptions, yet the argument still does not reduce to its own inputs by definition. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard design and error assumptions plus two assumptions specifically tailored to the MOCE expansion idea. The free parameters tau_a, tau_c, C, and the LASSO tuning choice affect the procedure's behavior; the proof of the central result does not justify the claimed sparsity relaxation under the rates stated.

free parameters (4)
  • tau_a = 10^{-8} sqrt(log p / n) in simulations; rate o(sqrt(log p/n)) in theory
    Ridge scale for the expanded model block; controls variance of signal estimators and enters the remainder negligibility in Lemma 4.1.
  • tau_c = 10^{-4} sqrt(rho_max(S_{AA}) rho_max(S_{AcAc})) in simulations; rate O(sqrt(lambda_max(p-tilde a))) in theory
    Ridge scale for the complement block; controls null-signal variance and the error bound in Corollary 5.2.
  • Expansion constant C = 4 to 12 in simulations
    Scales lambda_a = C min(1/sqrt(hat a n), lambda_s) to set expanded model size; no theory specifies C.
  • LASSO tuning lambda = selected by 10-fold cross-validation in simulations
    Initial selected model size, and hence the expanded model, depends on lambda; theory fixes lambda approximately sqrt(log p/n) but the simulations use a data-driven choice.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: design satisfies RE(s,k) with k=3 and s=a
    Controls LASSO estimation error; standard in high-dimensional sparse regression.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: design satisfies SE(s) for s=max(tilde a, hat a)
    Requires well-conditioned Hessians on selected and expanded models.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3: ||beta*_{tilde A^c cap A_s}||_2 = o_p(1/sqrt(n))
    Permits expanded model to leak weak signals; tailored to the expansion idea and not derived from earlier conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4: sqrt(hat a) ||hat beta_{tilde A^c cap hat A}||_infty = o_p(1/sqrt(n))
    Requires LASSO coefficients outside the expanded model to be tiny; the paper argues it can be satisfied but does not prove the algorithm guarantees it.
  • domain assumption Assumption 5: Gaussian errors
    Used for the asymptotic normality in Theorem 5.1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6: moment and Lindeberg conditions on errors
    Used for the non-Gaussian central limit theorem in Theorem 5.2.
  • domain assumption Assumption 7: empirical process bounds on n^{-1} X^T epsilon
    Used in Corollary 5.2 for l2 error bounds; holds for sub-Gaussian errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Method of Contraction-Expansion (MOCE) for Simultaneous Inference in Linear Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFLEXWE2

@misc{pith2026190801253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Method of Contraction-Expansion (MOCE) for Simultaneous Inference in Linear Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFLEXWE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01253}
}
read the original abstract

Simultaneous inference after model selection is of critical importance to address scientific hypotheses involving a set of parameters. In this paper, we consider high-dimensional linear regression model in which a regularization procedure such as LASSO is applied to yield a sparse model. To establish a simultaneous post-model selection inference, we propose a method of contraction and expansion (MOCE) along the line of debiasing estimation that enables us to balance the bias-and-variance trade-off so that the super-sparsity assumption may be relaxed. We establish key theoretical results for the proposed MOCE procedure from which the expanded model can be selected with theoretical guarantees and simultaneous confidence regions can be constructed by the joint asymptotic normal distribution. In comparison with existing methods, our proposed method exhibits stable and reliable coverage at a nominal significance level with substantially less computational burden, and thus it is trustworthy for its application in solving real-world problems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction. We consider the linear model with a response vector y = (y1,...,y n)T and an n×p design matrix X, (1.1) y =Xβ∗ +ϵ, whereβ∗ = (β∗ 1,··· ,β∗ p)T∈ Rp denotes a p-dimensional vector of unknown true regression coefficients, and ϵ = (ϵ1,...,ϵ n)T is an n-dimensional vector of i.i.d. random errors with mean zero and variance σ2In, where In is the n×n...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    For a vector ν = (ν1,··· ,νp)T ∈ Rp, the 𝓁0-norm is ‖ν‖0 = ∑p j= 1{|νj| > 0}; the ∞-norm is ‖ν‖∞ = max 1≤j≤p |νj|; and the 𝓁2- norm is ‖ν‖2 2 = ∑p j=1ν2 j

    Notation. For a vector ν = (ν1,··· ,νp)T ∈ Rp, the 𝓁0-norm is ‖ν‖0 = ∑p j= 1{|νj| > 0}; the ∞-norm is ‖ν‖∞ = max 1≤j≤p |νj|; and the 𝓁2- norm is ‖ν‖2 2 = ∑p j=1ν2 j . For a p×p matrix W = (wij)1≤i≤j≤p∈ Rp×p, the∞-norm is|W|∞ = max 1≤j,j′≤p |wjj′| and the Frobenious norm is ‖W‖2 F = tr(WTW ) where tr(W ) is the trace of matrix W . Refer to [11] for other m...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The first regularity condition on the design matrix X is given as follows

    Preliminary Results. The first regularity condition on the design matrix X is given as follows. Assumption 1. The design matrix X in the linear model (1.1) satisfies the RE(s,k ) condition for k = 3 and s = a, where a is the number of non-null signals. Assumption 1 above is routinely assumed for design matrix X in a high- dimensional linear model; see for e...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We first introduce MOCE and then discuss its computational complexity

    MOCE Method. We first introduce MOCE and then discuss its computational complexity. In particular, procedures for model expansion are discussed in detail in section 4.2. 4.1. MOCE. Suppose an expanded model ˜A has been given. We par- tition a LASSO estimator ˆβλ given in (1.2) as ˆβλ = ( ˆβ T ˜A, ˆβ T ˜Ac)T . Rewrite KKT condition (1.3) according to this p...

    work page

  5. [5]

    ambiguity

    Main results. In this section we present several key large-sample properties, including asymptotic normality (ASN) under Gaussian errors and non-Gaussian errors, useful for simultaneous inference. In Lemma 4.1, we establish respective 𝓁2-norm bounds for error terms ra and rc under positive diagonal matrices τa and τc. Because of the condition (4.14), it s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Essentially, we want to use simulations to com- pare our MOCE to popular LDP methods proposed by [27] for their perfor- mances on inference

    Simulation studies. Essentially, we want to use simulations to com- pare our MOCE to popular LDP methods proposed by [27] for their perfor- mances on inference. 6.1. Setup. We simulate 200 datasets according to the following setup: y =Xβ∗ +ϵ, ϵ = (ϵi,...,ϵ n)T, ϵ i i.i.d.∼ N(0,σ 2), i = 1,...,n, where σ = 2√a n, and the signal set A is formed by a randoml...

    work page

  7. [7]

    We developed a new method of contraction and expan- sion (MOCE) for simultaneous inference in the high-dimensional linear mod- els

    Discussion. We developed a new method of contraction and expan- sion (MOCE) for simultaneous inference in the high-dimensional linear mod- els. Different from the existing low dimensional projection (LDP) method, in MOCE we propose a step of model expansion with a proper expansion order, so that the model selection uncertainty due to the LASSO tuning param...

    work page

  8. [8]

    , Hansen, C

    Chernozhukov, V. , Hansen, C. and Spindler, M. (2015). Valid post-selection and post-regularization inference: an elementary, general approach. Annual Review of Economics 7 649-688

    work page 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    and Saranadasa, H

    Bai, Z. and Saranadasa, H. (1996). Effect of high dimension: by an example of a two sample problem. Statistica Sinica 6 311-329

    1996

  2. [10]

    and Silverstein, J

    Bai, Z. and Silverstein, J. W. (2012). Spectral Analysis of Large Dimensional Random Matrices. Springer Series in Statistics . Springer New York

    2012

  3. [11]

    , Brown, L

    Berk, R. , Brown, L. , Buja, A. , Zhang, K. and Zhao, L. (2013). Valid post- selection inference. Ann. Statist. 41 802–837

    2013

  4. [12]

    Bickel, P. J. , Ritov, Y. and Tsybakov, A. B. (2009). Simultaneous analysis of lasso and dantzig selector. Ann. Statist. 37 1705–1732. MOCE 29

    2009

  5. [13]

    B¨uhlmann, P. (2013). Statistical significance in high-dimensional linear models. Bernoulli 19 1212–1242

    2013

  6. [14]

    and van de Geer, S

    B¨uhlmann, P. and van de Geer, S. (2011). Statistics for high-dimensional data: methods, theory and applications , 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated

    2011

  7. [15]

    Cai, T. T. and Guo, Z. (2017). Confidence intervals for high-dimensional linear regression: Minimax rates and adaptivity. Ann. Statist. 45 615–646

    2017

  8. [16]

    Meinshausen, N. (2015). Group bound: confidence intervals for groups of variables in sparse high dimensional regression without assumptions on the design. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol 77 923–945

    2015

  9. [17]

    Donoho, D. L. and Johnstone, I. M. (1994). Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 81 425–455

    1994

  10. [18]

    , Hastie, T

    Friedman, J. , Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software 33 1–22

    2010

  11. [19]

    Horn, R. A. and Johnson, C. R. (2012). Matrix Analysis, Second ed. Cambridge University Press

    2012

  12. [20]

    and Montanari, A

    Javanmard, A. and Montanari, A. (2014). Confidence intervals and hypothesis testing for high-dimensional regression. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 2869–2909

    2014

  13. [21]

    and Wolf, M

    Ledoit, O. and Wolf, M. (2004). A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivariate Anal. 88 365 - 411

    2004

  14. [22]

    and P¨otscher, B

    Leeb, H. and P¨otscher, B. M. (2008). Sparse estimators and the oracle property, or the return of Hodges estimator. Journal of Econometrics 142 201–211

    2008

  15. [23]

    and Yu, B

    Liu, H. and Yu, B. (2013). Asymptotic properties of Lasso+mLS and Lasso+Ridge in sparse high-dimensional linear regression. Electron. J. Statist. 7 3124–3169

    2013

  16. [24]

    proposes to use node-wise LASSO to get ˆΘ, while [12] adopts a convex optimization algorithm to obtain ˆΘ. It is worth noting that these existing approaches are computationally burdensome, and require extra regularity conditions to ensure the estimated sparse ˆΘ to be feasible...

  17. [25]

    and B¨uhlmann, P

    Meinshausen, N. and B¨uhlmann, P. (2010). Stability selection. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol 72 417–473

    2010

  18. [26]

    , Meier, L

    Meinshausen, N. , Meier, L. and B¨uhlmann, P. (2009). p-Values for high- dimensional regression. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc 104 1671-1681

    2009

  19. [27]

    and Yu, B

    Meinshausen, N. and Yu, B. (2009). Lasso-type recovery of sparse representations for high-dimensional data. Ann. Statist. 37 246–270

    2009

  20. [28]

    , Tian, L

    Minnier, J. , Tian, L. and Cai, T. (2012). A perturbation method for inference on regularized regression estimates. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc

    2012

  21. [29]

    Negahban, S. N. , Ravikumar, P., W ainwright, M. J. and Yu, B. (2012). A Uni- fied Framework for High-Dimensional Analysis of M-Estimators with Decomposable Regularizers. Statist. Sci. 27 538–557

    2012

  22. [30]

    , Tibshirani, R

    Reid, S. , Tibshirani, R. and Friedman, J. (2013). A study of error variance esti- mation in lasso regression. ArXiv e-prints

    2013

  23. [31]

    Tibshirani, R. (1994). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol 58 267–288

    1994

  24. [32]

    and Dezeure, R

    van de Geer, S., B¨uhlmann, P., Ritov, Y. and Dezeure, R. (2014). On asymptot- ically optimal confidence regions and tests for high-dimensional models. Ann. Statist. 42 1166–1202

    2014

  25. [33]

    and Roeder, K

    W asserman, L. and Roeder, K. (2009). High-dimensional variable selection. Ann. Statist. 37 2178–2201

    2009

  26. [34]

    and Cheng, G

    Zhang, X. and Cheng, G. (2017). Simultaneous inference for high-dimensional linear 30 models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc 112 757-768

    2017

  27. [35]

    and Zhang, S

    Zhang, C.-H. and Zhang, S. S. (2014). Confidence intervals for low dimensional parameters in high dimensional linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol 76 217–242

    2014

  28. [36]

    and Yu, B

    Zhao, P. and Yu, B. (2006). On model selection consistency of lasso. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7 2541–2563

    2006

  29. [37]

    Zhou, S. (2009). Thresholding Procedures for High Dimensional Variable Selection and Statistical Estimation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 (Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. D. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams and A. Culotta, eds.) 2304–2312

    2009

  30. [38]

    and Hastie, T

    Zou, H. and Hastie, T. (2005). Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol 67 301-320. CarGurus Cambridge, MA, U.S.A E-mail: fwang@cargurus.com Southwestern University of Finance and Economics Chengdu, China E-mail: zhoulin...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.