Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 521

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The benefit of group sparsity

Open access
Huang, Junzhou, Zhang, Tong·2010·The Annals of Statistics

Abstract

This paper develops a theory for group Lasso using a concept called strong group sparsity. Our result shows that group Lasso is superior to standard Lasso for strongly group-sparse signals. This provides a convincing theoretical justification for using group sparse regularization when the underlying group structure is consistent with the data. Moreover, the theory predicts some limitations of the group Lasso formulation that are confirmed by simulation studies.

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-aos778

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 521

Metadata

Authors
Huang, J., & Zhang, T.
Venue
The Annals of Statistics
Published
2010-08-01
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
1978-2004
ISSN
0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077964948
Cited by
521
References
16
FWCI
32.59
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: The benefit of group sparsity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/09-aos778
The paper
Huang, J., & Zhang, T. (2010). The benefit of group sparsity. The Annals of Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-aos778

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.