跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论通用惩罚似然与信息准则,未明确关联所列领域细分的特定问题。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Cheryl J. Flynn

误设模型惩罚似然估计中正则化参数选择的效率

研究问题
在总体方差未知、模型可能误设的惩罚回归中,AIC 能否有效选择调节参数,其有限样本过度选模问题如何处理?
方法与思路
作者放宽既有方差条件,分析 AIC 和修正 AIC 的渐近效率,并扩展到无离散参数的广义线性模型及一般候选模型集合。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,AIC 在放宽条件后仍具渐近效率,修正 AIC 保留所需渐近性质;模拟同时揭示 AIC 在高维候选模型下的不足。
阅读关注点
应核对渐近效率对应的损失或风险、误设条件、候选模型规模限制,以及修正 AIC 在 SCAD 与 Lasso 中的实现方式。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明,不能推断刊本变化。摘要未给出效率的具体条件或比较数值,不能认定修正 AIC 总是最优。

原文摘要

It has been shown that Akaike information criterion (AIC)-type criteria are asymptotically efficient selectors of the tuning parameter in nonconcave penalized regression methods under the assumption that the population variance is known or that a consistent estimator is available. We relax this assumption to prove that AIC itself is asymptotically efficient and we study its performance in finite samples. In classical regression, it is known that AIC tends to select overly complex models when the dimension of the maximum candidate model is large relative to the sample size. Simulation studies suggest that AIC suffers from the same shortcomings when used in penalized regression. We therefore propose the use of the classical corrected AIC (AIC c ) as an alternative and prove that it maintains the desired asymptotic properties. To broaden our results, we further prove the efficiency of AIC for penalized likelihood methods in the context of generalized linear models with no dispersion parameter. Similar results exist in the literature but only for a restricted set of candidate models. By employing results from the classical literature on maximum-likelihood estimation in misspecified models, we are able to establish this result for a general set of candidate models. We use simulations to assess the performance of AIC and AIC c , as well as that of other selectors, in finite samples for both smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD)-penalized and Lasso regressions and a real data example is considered. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

笔记与分组