A bias correction for the minimum error rate in cross-validation

Tuning parameters in supervised learning problems are often estimated by cross-validation. The minimum value of the cross-validation error can be biased downward as an estimate of the test error at that same value of the tuning parameter. We propose a simple method for the estimation of this bias that uses information from the cross-validation process. As a result, it requires essentially no additional computation. We apply our bias estimate to a number of popular classifiers in various settings, and examine its performance.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS224 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

The Lasso Problem and Uniqueness

The lasso is a popular tool for sparse linear regression, especially for problems in which the number of variables p exceeds the number of observations n. But when p>n, the lasso criterion is not strictly convex, and hence it may not have a unique minimum. An important question is: when is the lasso solution well-defined (unique)? We review results from the literature, which show that if the predictor variables are drawn from a continuous probability distribution, then there is a unique lasso solution with probability one, regardless of the sizes of n and p. We also show that this result extends easily to $\ell_1$ penalized minimization problems over a wide range of loss functions. A second important question is: how can we deal with the case of non-uniqueness in lasso solutions? In light of the aforementioned result, this case really only arises when some of the predictor variables are discrete, or when some post-processing has been performed on continuous predictor measurements. Though we certainly cannot claim to provide a complete answer to such a broad question, we do present progress towards understanding some aspects of non-uniqueness. First, we extend the LARS algorithm for computing the lasso solution path to cover the non-unique case, so that this path algorithm works for any predictor matrix. Next, we derive a simple method for computing the component-wise uncertainty in lasso solutions of any given problem instance, based on linear programming. Finally, we review results from the literature on some of the unifying properties of lasso solutions, and also point out particular forms of solutions that have distinctive properties.Comment: 25 pages, 0 figure

A General Framework for Fast Stagewise Algorithms

Forward stagewise regression follows a very simple strategy for constructing a sequence of sparse regression estimates: it starts with all coefficients equal to zero, and iteratively updates the coefficient (by a small amount $\epsilon$) of the variable that achieves the maximal absolute inner product with the current residual. This procedure has an interesting connection to the lasso: under some conditions, it is known that the sequence of forward stagewise estimates exactly coincides with the lasso path, as the step size $\epsilon$ goes to zero. Furthermore, essentially the same equivalence holds outside of least squares regression, with the minimization of a differentiable convex loss function subject to an $\ell_1$ norm constraint (the stagewise algorithm now updates the coefficient corresponding to the maximal absolute component of the gradient). Even when they do not match their $\ell_1$-constrained analogues, stagewise estimates provide a useful approximation, and are computationally appealing. Their success in sparse modeling motivates the question: can a simple, effective strategy like forward stagewise be applied more broadly in other regularization settings, beyond the $\ell_1$ norm and sparsity? The current paper is an attempt to do just this. We present a general framework for stagewise estimation, which yields fast algorithms for problems such as group-structured learning, matrix completion, image denoising, and more.Comment: 56 pages, 15 figure

Exact Post-Selection Inference for Sequential Regression Procedures

We propose new inference tools for forward stepwise regression, least angle regression, and the lasso. Assuming a Gaussian model for the observation vector y, we first describe a general scheme to perform valid inference after any selection event that can be characterized as y falling into a polyhedral set. This framework allows us to derive conditional (post-selection) hypothesis tests at any step of forward stepwise or least angle regression, or any step along the lasso regularization path, because, as it turns out, selection events for these procedures can be expressed as polyhedral constraints on y. The p-values associated with these tests are exactly uniform under the null distribution, in finite samples, yielding exact type I error control. The tests can also be inverted to produce confidence intervals for appropriate underlying regression parameters. The R package "selectiveInference", freely available on the CRAN repository, implements the new inference tools described in this paper.Comment: 26 pages, 5 figure

Excess Optimism: How Biased is the Apparent Error of an Estimator Tuned by SURE?

Nearly all estimators in statistical prediction come with an associated tuning parameter, in one way or another. Common practice, given data, is to choose the tuning parameter value that minimizes a constructed estimate of the prediction error of the estimator; we focus on Stein's unbiased risk estimator, or SURE (Stein, 1981; Efron, 1986) which forms an unbiased estimate of the prediction error by augmenting the observed training error with an estimate of the degrees of freedom of the estimator. Parameter tuning via SURE minimization has been advocated by many authors, in a wide variety of problem settings, and in general, it is natural to ask: what is the prediction error of the SURE-tuned estimator? An obvious strategy would be simply use the apparent error estimate as reported by SURE, i.e., the value of the SURE criterion at its minimum, to estimate the prediction error of the SURE-tuned estimator. But this is no longer unbiased; in fact, we would expect that the minimum of the SURE criterion is systematically biased downwards for the true prediction error. In this paper, we formally describe and study this bias.Comment: 39 pages, 3 figure

From Fixed-X to Random-X Regression: Bias-Variance Decompositions, Covariance Penalties, and Prediction Error Estimation

In statistical prediction, classical approaches for model selection and model evaluation based on covariance penalties are still widely used. Most of the literature on this topic is based on what we call the "Fixed-X" assumption, where covariate values are assumed to be nonrandom. By contrast, it is often more reasonable to take a "Random-X" view, where the covariate values are independently drawn for both training and prediction. To study the applicability of covariance penalties in this setting, we propose a decomposition of Random-X prediction error in which the randomness in the covariates contributes to both the bias and variance components. This decomposition is general, but we concentrate on the fundamental case of least squares regression. We prove that in this setting the move from Fixed-X to Random-X prediction results in an increase in both bias and variance. When the covariates are normally distributed and the linear model is unbiased, all terms in this decomposition are explicitly computable, which yields an extension of Mallows' Cp that we call $RCp$. $RCp$ also holds asymptotically for certain classes of nonnormal covariates. When the noise variance is unknown, plugging in the usual unbiased estimate leads to an approach that we call $\hat{RCp}$, which is closely related to Sp (Tukey 1967), and GCV (Craven and Wahba 1978). For excess bias, we propose an estimate based on the "shortcut-formula" for ordinary cross-validation (OCV), resulting in an approach we call $RCp^+$. Theoretical arguments and numerical simulations suggest that $RCP^+$ is typically superior to OCV, though the difference is small. We further examine the Random-X error of other popular estimators. The surprising result we get for ridge regression is that, in the heavily-regularized regime, Random-X variance is smaller than Fixed-X variance, which can lead to smaller overall Random-X error