We investigate the accuracy of the two most common estimators for the maximum expected value of a general set of random variables: a generalization of the maximum sample average, and cross validation. No unbiased estimator exists and we show that it is non-trivial to select a good estimator without knowledge about the distributions of the random variables. We investigate and bound the bias and variance of the aforementioned estimators and prove consistency. The variance of cross validation can be significantly reduced, but not without risking a large bias. The bias and variance of different variants of cross validation are shown to be very problem-dependent, and a wrong choice can lead to very inaccurate estimates.
The @cite_17 is a resampling method that can be used to estimate the bias of an estimator, in order to reduce this bias. Based on this, Tibshirani and Tibshirani @cite_9 propose an estimator for @math for model selection in classification. Inevitably---see Section ---the resulting estimate is still biased, and it is typically more variable that the original estimate. Also specifically considering model selection for classifiers, @cite_3 propose a smoothed version of nested CV. The resulting estimator performs similar to normal (nested) CV, which in turn is shown to typically be more accurate than the approach by Tibshirani and Tibshirani. In this paper we focus on CV and the ME, which are by far the most widely used.
@cite_9 @cite_3 @cite_17
2231154347 2949399223 2930033329 2139122730
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. We propose robust methods for inference on the effect of a treatment variable on a scalar outcome in the presence of very many controls. Our setting is a partially linear model with possibly non-Gaussian and heteroscedastic disturbances. Our analysis allows the number of controls to be much larger than the sample size. To make informative inference feasible, we require the model to be approximately sparse; that is, we require that the effect of confounding factors can be controlled for up to a small approximation error by conditioning on a relatively small number of controls whose identities are unknown. The latter condition makes it possible to estimate the treatment effect by selecting approximately the right set of controls. We develop a novel estimation and uniformly valid inference method for the treatment effect in this setting, called the "post-double-selection" method. Our results apply to Lasso-type methods used for covariate selection as well as to any other model selection method that is able to find a sparse model with good approximation properties. The main attractive feature of our method is that it allows for imperfect selection of the controls and provides confidence intervals that are valid uniformly across a large class of models. In contrast, standard post-model selection estimators fail to provide uniform inference even in simple cases with a small, fixed number of controls. Thus our method resolves the problem of uniform inference after model selection for a large, interesting class of models. We illustrate the use of the developed methods with numerical simulations and an application to the effect of abortion on crime rates. We consider inference about a scalar parameter under a non-parametric model based on a one-step estimator computed as a plug in estimator plus the empirical mean of an estimator of the parameter's influence function. We focus on a class of parameters that have influence function which depends on two infinite dimensional nuisance functions and such that the bias of the one-step estimator of the parameter of interest is the expectation of the product of the estimation errors of the two nuisance functions. Our class includes many important treatment effect contrasts of interest in causal inference and econometrics, such as ATE, ATT, an integrated causal contrast with a continuous treatment, and the mean of an outcome missing not at random. We propose estimators of the target parameter that entertain approximately sparse regression models for the nuisance functions allowing for the number of potential confounders to be even larger than the sample size. By employing sample splitting, cross-fitting and @math -regularized regression estimators of the nuisance functions based on objective functions whose directional derivatives agree with those of the parameter's influence function, we obtain estimators of the target parameter with two desirable robustness properties: (1) they are rate doubly-robust in that they are root-n consistent and asymptotically normal when both nuisance functions follow approximately sparse models, even if one function has a very non-sparse regression coefficient, so long as the other has a sufficiently sparse regression coefficient, and (2) they are model doubly-robust in that they are root-n consistent and asymptotically normal even if one of the nuisance functions does not follow an approximately sparse model so long as the other nuisance function follows an approximately sparse model with a sufficiently sparse regression coefficient. Sample selection bias as a specification error This paper discusses the bias that results from using non-randomly selected samples to estimate behavioral relationships as an ordinary specification error or «omitted variables» bias. A simple consistent two stage estimator is considered that enables analysts to utilize simple regression methods to estimate behavioral functions by least squares methods. The asymptotic distribution of the estimator is derived.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)