Cross-validation (CV) is a technique for evaluating the ability of statistical models learning systems based on a given data set. Despite its wide applicability, the rather heavy computational cost can prevent its use as the system size grows. To resolve this difficulty in the case of Bayesian linear regression, we develop a formula for evaluating the leave-one-out CV error approximately without actually performing CV. The usefulness of the developed formula is tested by statistical mechanical analysis for a synthetic model. This is confirmed by application to a real-world supernova data set as well.
There have been several studies of CV for linear regression. The analytical formula for evaluating the LOO CV error (LOOE) exactly, without actually performing CV, is widely known for standard linear regression and ridge regression @cite_8 . This formula was extended to the case in which linear constraints are present @cite_5 . An alternative measure, which has a property similar to that of LOOE and can be evaluated at a lower computational cost, was proposed as the generalized cross--validation'' in @cite_7 for regularized linear regression. Two types of LOOE approximation formulas for LASSO were recently provided in @cite_15 . In contrast to these, our aim here is to develop a computationally feasible approximate formula to evaluate LOOE in the Bayesian formalism in which sparse (singular) priors can be employed. A similar attempt has been made for feedforward neural networks in @cite_9 .
@cite_7 @cite_8 @cite_9 @cite_5 @cite_15
2231154347 1982652137 2160222246 2172185584
We investigate leave-one-out cross validation (CV) as a determinator of the weight of the penalty term in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). First, on the basis of the message passing algorithm and a perturbative discussion assuming that the number of observations is sufficiently large, we provide simple formulas for approximately assessing two types of CV errors, which enable us to significantly reduce the necessary cost of computation. These formulas also provide a simple connection of the CV errors to the residual sums of squares between the reconstructed and the given measurements. Second, on the basis of this finding, we analytically evaluate the CV errors when the design matrix is given as a simple random matrix in the large size limit by using the replica method. Finally, these results are compared with those of numerical simulations on finite-size systems and are confirmed to be correct. We also apply the simple formulas of the first type of CV error to an actual dataset of the supernovae. The Lasso estimate for linear regression parameters can be interpreted as a Bayesian posterior mode estimate when the regression parameters have independent Laplace (i.e., double-exponential) priors. Gibbs sampling from this posterior is possible using an expanded hierarchy with conjugate normal priors for the regression parameters and independent exponential priors on their variances. A connection with the inverse-Gaussian distribution provides tractable full conditional distributions. The Bayesian Lasso provides interval estimates (Bayesian credible intervals) that can guide variable selection. Moreover, the structure of the hierarchical model provides both Bayesian and likelihood methods for selecting the Lasso parameter. Slight modifications lead to Bayesian versions of other Lasso-related estimation methods, including bridge regression and a robust variant. We consider the least-square linear regression problem with regularization by the l1-norm, a problem usually referred to as the Lasso. In this paper, we present a detailed asymptotic analysis of model consistency of the Lasso. For various decays of the regularization parameter, we compute asymptotic equivalents of the probability of correct model selection (i.e., variable selection). For a specific rate decay, we show that the Lasso selects all the variables that should enter the model with probability tending to one exponentially fast, while it selects all other variables with strictly positive probability. We show that this property implies that if we run the Lasso for several bootstrapped replications of a given sample, then intersecting the supports of the Lasso bootstrap estimates leads to consistent model selection. This novel variable selection algorithm, referred to as the Bolasso, is compared favorably to other linear regression methods on synthetic data and datasets from the UCI machine learning repository. In the sparse linear regression setting, we consider testing the significance of the predictor variable that enters the current lasso model, in the sequence of models visited along the lasso solution path. We propose a simple test statistic based on lasso fitted values, called the covariance test statistic, and show that when the true model is linear, this statistic has an Exp(1) asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis (the null being that all truly active variables are contained in the current lasso model). Our proof of this result for the special case of the first predictor to enter the model (i.e., testing for a single significant predictor variable against the global null) requires only weak assumptions on the predictor matrix X. On the other hand, our proof for a general step in the lasso path places further technical assumptions on X and the generative model, but still allows for the important high-dimensional case p > n, and does not necessarily require that the current lasso model achieves perfect recovery of the truly active variables. Of course, for testing the significance of an additional variable between two nested linear models, one typically uses the chi-squared test, comparing the drop in residual sum of squares (RSS) to a χ12 distribution. But when this additional variable is not fixed, and has been chosen adaptively or greedily, this test is no longer appropriate: adaptivity makes the drop in RSS stochastically much larger than χ12 under the null hypothesis. Our analysis explicitly accounts for adaptivity, as it must, since the lasso builds an adaptive sequence of linear models as the tuning parameter λ decreases. In this analysis, shrinkage plays a key role: though additional variables are chosen adaptively, the coefficients of lasso active variables are shrunken due to the l1 penalty. Therefore, the test statistic (which is based on lasso fitted values) is in a sense balanced by these two opposing properties—adaptivity and shrinkage—and its null distribution is tractable and asymptotically Exp(1).