Debiasing the Lasso under Weaker Tail Assumptions
较弱尾部假设下的 Lasso 去偏推断AI 解读 ↓
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。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
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。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论通用高维线性推断;提及 double selection 文献并不足以证明本文研究因果效应。
较弱尾部假设下的 Lasso 去偏推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We consider the problem of high-dimensional inference with the lasso estimator. Different methods including 'double selection' techniques and multiple versions of the 'debiased lasso' have been proposed for this task with noticeable success. However, most guarantees assume strong hypotheses on the underlying data process and the errors in the linear regression model, such as subgaussian designs and independence between errors and the data itself. We show that 'standardizing' one's dataset -- a natural procedure in practical penalized regression -- leads to the same results under much weaker hypotheses, paying only a small price for not assuming light tails. The key technical point allowed by this step is exploiting the concentration properties of self-normalized processes. Importantly, we prove our results for two different methods closely related to the 'debiased lasso'. The second method performs valid inference even for a misspecified linear model, under mild sparsity conditions similar to the 'double selection' literature.