We establish a general upper bound for $K$-fold cross-validation ($K$-CV) errors that can be adapted to many $K$-CV-based estimators and learning algorithms. Based on Rademacher complexity of the model and the Orlicz-$\Psi_{\nu}$ norm of the error process, the CV error upper bound applies to both light-tail and heavy-tail error distributions. We also extend the CV error upper bound to $\beta$-mixing data using the technique of independent blocking. We provide a Python package (\texttt{CVbound}, \url{https://github.com/isaac2math}) for computing the CV error upper bound in $K$-CV-based algorithms. Using the lasso as an example, we demonstrate in simulations that the upper bounds are tight and stable across different parameter settings and random seeds. As well as accurately bounding the CV errors for the lasso, the minimizer of the new upper bounds can be used as a criterion for variable selection. Compared with the CV-error minimizer, simulations show that tuning the lasso penalty parameter according to the minimizer of the upper bound yields a more sparse and more stable model that retains all of the relevant variables.

The exogeneity bias and instrument validation have always been critical topics in statistics, machine learning and biostatistics. In the era of big data, such issues typically come with dimensionality issue and, hence, require even more attention than ever. In this paper we ensemble two well-known tools from machine learning and biostatistics -- stable variable selection and random graph -- and apply them to estimating the house pricing mechanics and the follow-up socio-economic effect on the 2010 Sydney house data. The estimation is conducted on an over-200-gigabyte ultrahigh dimensional database consisting of local education data, GIS information, census data, house transaction and other socio-economic records. The technique ensemble carefully improves the variable selection sparisty, stability and robustness to high dimensionality, complicated causal structures and the consequent multicollinearity, which is ultimately helpful on the data-driven recovery of a sparse and intuitive causal structure. The new ensemble also reveals its efficiency and effectiveness on endogeneity detection, instrument validation, weak instruments pruning and selection of proper instruments. From the perspective of machine learning, the estimation result both aligns with and confirms the facts of Sydney house market, the classical economic theories and the previous findings of simultaneous equations modeling. Moreover, the estimation result is totally consistent with and supported by the classical econometric tool like two-stage least square regression and different instrument tests (the code can be found at https://github.com/isaac2math/solar_graph_learning).

We propose a new least-angle regression algorithm for variable selection in high-dimensional data, called \emph{subsample-ordered least-angle regression (solar)}. Solar relies on the average $L_0$ solution path computed across subsamples and largely alleviates several known high-dimensional issues with least-angle regression. Using examples based on directed acyclic graphs, we illustrate the advantages of solar in comparison to least-angle regression, forward regression and variable screening. Simulations demonstrate that, with a similar computation load, solar yields substantial improvements over two lasso solvers (least-angle regression for lasso and coordinate-descent) in terms of the sparsity (37-64\% reduction in the average number of selected variables), stability and accuracy of variable selection. Simulations also demonstrate that solar enhances the robustness of variable selection to different settings of the irrepresentable condition and to variations in the dependence structures assumed in regression analysis. We provide a Python package \texttt{solarpy} for the algorithm.

In this paper, we introduce a new concept of stability for cross-validation, called the $\left( \beta, \varpi \right)$-stability, and use it as a new perspective to build the general theory for cross-validation. The $\left( \beta, \varpi \right)$-stability mathematically connects the generalization ability and the stability of the cross-validated model via the Rademacher complexity. Our result reveals mathematically the effect of cross-validation from two sides: on one hand, cross-validation picks the model with the best empirical generalization ability by validating all the alternatives on test sets; on the other hand, cross-validation may compromise the stability of the model selection by causing subsampling error. Moreover, the difference between training and test errors in q\textsuperscript{th} round, sometimes referred to as the generalization error, might be autocorrelated on q. Guided by the ideas above, the $\left( \beta, \varpi \right)$-stability help us derivd a new class of Rademacher bounds, referred to as the one-round/convoluted Rademacher bounds, for the stability of cross-validation in both the i.i.d.\ and non-i.i.d.\ cases. For both light-tail and heavy-tail losses, the new bounds quantify the stability of the one-round/average test error of the cross-validated model in terms of its one-round/average training error, the sample sizes $n$, number of folds $K$, the tail property of the loss (encoded as Orlicz-$\Psi_\nu$ norms) and the Rademacher complexity of the model class $\Lambda$. The new class of bounds not only quantitatively reveals the stability of the generalization ability of the cross-validated model, it also shows empirically the optimal choice for number of folds $K$, at which the upper bound of the one-round/average test error is lowest, or, to put it in another way, where the test error is most stable.

We study model evaluation and model selection from the perspective of generalization ability (GA): the ability of a model to predict outcomes in new samples from the same population. We believe that GA is one way formally to address concerns about the external validity of a model. The GA of a model estimated on a sample can be measured by its empirical out-of-sample errors, called the generalization errors (GE). We derive upper bounds for the GE, which depend on sample sizes, model complexity and the distribution of the loss function. The upper bounds can be used to evaluate the GA of a model, ex ante. We propose using generalization error minimization (GEM) as a framework for model selection. Using GEM, we are able to unify a big class of penalized regression estimators, including lasso, ridge and bridge, under the same set of assumptions. We establish finite-sample and asymptotic properties (including $\mathcal{L}_2$-consistency) of the GEM estimator for both the $n \geqslant p$ and the $n < p$ cases. We also derive the $\mathcal{L}_2$-distance between the penalized and corresponding unpenalized regression estimates. In practice, GEM can be implemented by validation or cross-validation. We show that the GE bounds can be used for selecting the optimal number of folds in $K$-fold cross-validation. We propose a variant of $R^2$, the $GR^2$, as a measure of GA, which considers both both in-sample and out-of-sample goodness of fit. Simulations are used to demonstrate our key results.

In this paper, we study the performance of extremum estimators from the perspective of generalization ability (GA): the ability of a model to predict outcomes in new samples from the same population. By adapting the classical concentration inequalities, we derive upper bounds on the empirical out-of-sample prediction errors as a function of the in-sample errors, in-sample data size, heaviness in the tails of the error distribution, and model complexity. We show that the error bounds may be used for tuning key estimation hyper-parameters, such as the number of folds $K$ in cross-validation. We also show how $K$ affects the bias-variance trade-off for cross-validation. We demonstrate that the $\mathcal{L}_2$-norm difference between penalized and the corresponding un-penalized regression estimates is directly explained by the GA of the estimates and the GA of empirical moment conditions. Lastly, we prove that all penalized regression estimates are $L_2$-consistent for both the $n \geqslant p$ and the $n < p$ cases. Simulations are used to demonstrate key results. Keywords: generalization ability, upper bound of generalization error, penalized regression, cross-validation, bias-variance trade-off, $\mathcal{L}_2$ difference between penalized and unpenalized regression, lasso, high-dimensional data.

Model selection is difficult to analyse yet theoretically and empirically important, especially for high-dimensional data analysis. Recently the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) has been applied in the statistical and econometric literature. Consis- tency of Lasso has been established under various conditions, some of which are difficult to verify in practice. In this paper, we study model selection from the perspective of generalization ability, under the framework of structural risk minimization (SRM) and Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) theory. The approach emphasizes the balance between the in-sample and out-of-sample fit, which can be achieved by using cross-validation to select a penalty on model complexity. We show that an exact relationship exists between the generalization ability of a model and model selection consistency. By implementing SRM and the VC inequality, we show that Lasso is L2-consistent for model selection under assumptions similar to those imposed on OLS. Furthermore, we derive a probabilistic bound for the distance between the penalized extremum estimator and the extremum estimator without penalty, which is dominated by overfitting. We also propose a new measurement of overfitting, GR2, based on generalization ability, that converges to zero if model selection is consistent. Using simulations, we demonstrate that the proposed CV-Lasso algorithm performs well in terms of model selection and overfitting control.