IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/lstaxx/v51y2022i9p3018-3042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In defense of LASSO

Author

Listed:
  • Chi Tim Ng
  • Woojoo Lee
  • Youngjo Lee

Abstract

Although LASSO has been criticized for selecting too many covariates, it is illustrated in this paper that the bigger model chosen by LASSO method is suitable for exploratory research aiming at identifying all potential causes for further scientific investigation. Up to now, all criticisms assume that the covariates are observed without measurement errors, which is not likely to be true in many practical situations. Under measurement errors, the meaning of “relevant covariates” can be ambiguous. In such a situation, some covariates without an association with the response can be “potentially relevant”. The crucial point is that “relevant” and “potentially relevant” covariates cannot be distinguished based on the observed data in the presence of measurement errors. To avoid misinterpretation, both should be included in the model. This means that a bigger model is preferred. To understand the subset of covariates that should be included, a factor model of the covariates is introduced. Furthermore, new consistency theory is established under conditions weaker than those in Meinshausen and Bühlmann to cope with the situations where the preferred subset is not the same as the true model.

Suggested Citation

  • Chi Tim Ng & Woojoo Lee & Youngjo Lee, 2022. "In defense of LASSO," Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(9), pages 3018-3042, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:lstaxx:v:51:y:2022:i:9:p:3018-3042
    DOI: 10.1080/03610926.2020.1788080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03610926.2020.1788080
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03610926.2020.1788080?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:lstaxx:v:51:y:2022:i:9:p:3018-3042. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/lsta .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.