4.6 Article

Penalized regression via the restricted bridge estimator

期刊

SOFT COMPUTING
卷 25, 期 13, 页码 8401-8416

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00500-021-05763-9

关键词

Bridge regression; Restricted estimation; Machine learning; Quadratic approximation; Newton-Raphson; Variable selection; Multicollinearity

资金

  1. Inonu University Scientific Researches Unit [SUA-2019-1629]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proposed restricted bridge (RBRIDGE) estimator can simultaneously estimate parameters and select important variables in low-dimensional or high-dimensional cases, and performs exceptionally well when the prior information is accurate.
This article is concerned with the bridge regression, which is a special family in penalized regression with penalty function Sigma(p)(j=1) |beta(j) (q) with q > 0, in a linear model with linear restrictions. The proposed restricted bridge (RBRIDGE) estimator simultaneously estimates parameters and selects important variables when a piece of prior information about parameters are available in either low-dimensional or high-dimensional case. Using local quadratic approximation, we approximate the penalty term around a local initial values vector. The RBRIDGE estimator enjoys a closed-form expression that can be solved when q > 0. Special cases of our proposal are the restricted LASSO (q = 1), restricted RIDGE (q = 2), and restricted Elastic Net (1 < q < 2) estimators. We provide some theoretical properties of the RBRIDGE estimator for the low-dimensional case, whereas the computational aspects are given for both low- and high-dimensional cases. An extensive Monte Carlo simulation study is conducted based on different prior pieces of information. The performance of the RBRIDGE estimator is compared with some competitive penalty estimators and the ORACLE. We also consider four real-data examples analysis for comparison sake. The numerical results show that the suggested RBRIDGE estimator outperforms outstandingly when the prior is true or near exact.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据