Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 350

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Support union recovery in high-dimensional multivariate regression

Open access
Obozinski, Guillaume, Wainwright, Martin J., Jordan, Michael I.·2011·The Annals of Statistics

Abstract

In multivariate regression, a K-dimensional response vector is regressed upon a common set of p covariates, with a matrix B∗ ∈ ℝp × K of regression coefficients. We study the behavior of the multivariate group Lasso, in which block regularization based on the ℓ1 ∕ ℓ2 norm is used for support union recovery, or recovery of the set of s rows for which B∗ is nonzero. Under high-dimensional scaling, we show that the multivariate group Lasso exhibits a threshold for the recovery of the exact row pattern with high probability over the random design and noise that is specified by the sample complexity parameter θ(n, p, s) := n ∕ [2ψ(B∗) log(p − s)]. Here n is the sample size, and ψ(B∗) is a sparsity-overlap function measuring a combination of the sparsities and overlaps of the K-regression coefficient vectors that constitute the model. We prove that the multivariate group Lasso succeeds for problem sequences (n, p, s) such that θ(n, p, s) exceeds a critical level θu, and fails for sequences such that θ(n, p, s) lies below a critical level θℓ. For the special case of the standard Gaussian ensemble, we show that θℓ = θu so that the characterization is sharp. The sparsity-overlap function ψ(B∗) reveals that, if the design is uncorrelated on the active rows, ℓ1 ∕ ℓ2 regularization for multivariate regression never harms performance relative to an ordinary Lasso approach and can yield substantial improvements in sample complexity (up to a factor of K) when the coefficient vectors are suitably orthogonal. For more general designs, it is possible for the ordinary Lasso to outperform the multivariate group Lasso. We complement our analysis with simulations that demonstrate the sharpness of our theoretical results, even for relatively small problems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1214/09-aos776

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 350

Metadata

Authors
Obozinski, G., Wainwright, M. J., & Jordan, M. I.
Venue
The Annals of Statistics
Published
2011-02-01
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
1-47
ISSN
0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125536150
Cited by
350
References
4
FWCI
19.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Support union recovery in high-dimensional multivariate regression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/09-aos776
The paper
Obozinski, G., Wainwright, M. J., & Jordan, M. I. (2011). Support union recovery in high-dimensional multivariate regression. The Annals of Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-aos776

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.