Source author record

Karl Ewald

Karl Ewald appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
3topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

On the Distribution, Model Selection Properties and Uniqueness of the Lasso Estimator in Low and High Dimensions

We derive expressions for the finite-sample distribution of the Lasso estimator in the context of a linear regression model in low as well as in high dimensions by exploiting the structure of the optimization problem defining the estimator. In low dimensions, we assume full rank of the regressor matrix and present expressions for the cumulative distribution function as well as the densities of the absolutely continuous parts of the estimator. Our results are presented for the case of normally distributed errors, but do not hinge on this assumption and can easily be generalized. Additionally, we establish an explicit formula for the correspondence between the Lasso and the least-squares estimator. We derive analogous results for the distribution in less explicit form in high dimensions where we make no assumptions on the regressor matrix at all. In this setting, we also investigate the model selection properties of the Lasso and show that possibly only a subset of models might be selected by the estimator, completely independently of the observed response vector. Finally, we present a condition for uniqueness of the estimator that is necessary as well as sufficient.

preprint2015arXiv

On Various Confidence Intervals Post-Model-Selection

We compare several confidence intervals after model selection in the setting recently studied by Berk et al. [Ann. Statist. 41 (2013) 802-837], where the goal is to cover not the true parameter but a certain nonstandard quantity of interest that depends on the selected model. In particular, we compare the PoSI-intervals that are proposed in that reference with the "naive" confidence interval, which is constructed as if the selected model were correct and fixed a priori (thus ignoring the presence of model selection). Overall, we find that the actual coverage probabilities of all these intervals deviate only moderately from the desired nominal coverage probability. This finding is in stark contrast to several papers in the existing literature, where the goal is to cover the true parameter.