Researcher profile

Kendrick Kay

Kendrick Kay contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The risk of bias in denoising methods

Experimental datasets are growing rapidly in size, scope, and detail, but the value of these datasets is limited by unwanted measurement noise. It is therefore tempting to apply analysis techniques that attempt to reduce noise and enhance signals of interest. In this paper, we draw attention to the possibility that denoising methods may introduce bias and lead to incorrect scientific inferences. To present our case, we first review the basic statistical concepts of bias and variance. Denoising techniques typically reduce variance observed across repeated measurements, but this can come at the expense of introducing bias to the average expected outcome. We then conduct three simple simulations that provide concrete examples of how bias may manifest in everyday situations. These simulations reveal several findings that may be surprising and counterintuitive: (i) different methods can be equally effective at reducing variance but some incur bias while others do not, (ii) identifying methods that better recover ground truth does not guarantee the absence of bias, (iii) bias can arise even if one has specific knowledge of properties of the signal of interest. We suggest that researchers should consider and possibly quantify bias before deploying denoising methods on important research data.

preprint2020arXiv

Appreciating the variety of goals in computational neuroscience

Within computational neuroscience, informal interactions with modelers often reveal wildly divergent goals. In this opinion piece, we explicitly address the diversity of goals that motivate and ultimately influence modeling efforts. We argue that a wide range of goals can be meaningfully taken to be of highest importance. A simple informal survey conducted on the Internet confirmed the diversity of goals in the community. However, different priorities or preferences of individual researchers can lead to divergent model evaluation criteria. We propose that many disagreements in evaluating the merit of computational research stem from differences in goals and not from the mechanics of constructing, describing, and validating models. We suggest that authors state explicitly their goals when proposing models so that others can judge the quality of the research with respect to its stated goals.

preprint2020arXiv

Fractional ridge regression: a fast, interpretable reparameterization of ridge regression

Ridge regression (RR) is a regularization technique that penalizes the L2-norm of the coefficients in linear regression. One of the challenges of using RR is the need to set a hyperparameter ($α$) that controls the amount of regularization. Cross-validation is typically used to select the best $α$ from a set of candidates. However, efficient and appropriate selection of $α$ can be challenging, particularly where large amounts of data are analyzed. Because the selected $α$ depends on the scale of the data and predictors, it is not straightforwardly interpretable. Here, we propose to reparameterize RR in terms of the ratio $γ$ between the L2-norms of the regularized and unregularized coefficients. This approach, called fractional RR (FRR), has several benefits: the solutions obtained for different $γ$ are guaranteed to vary, guarding against wasted calculations, and automatically span the relevant range of regularization, avoiding the need for arduous manual exploration. We provide an algorithm to solve FRR, as well as open-source software implementations in Python and MATLAB (https://github.com/nrdg/fracridge). We show that the proposed method is fast and scalable for large-scale data problems, and delivers results that are straightforward to interpret and compare across models and datasets.