Transfer Learning Under High-Dimensional Network Convolutional Regression Model

Danyang Huang; Debarghya Mukherjee; Huimin Cheng; Jiachen Chen; Kathryn L. Lunetta; Liyuan Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Transfer Learning Under High-Dimensional Network Convolutional Regression Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Transfer learning provably accelerates coefficient recovery in high-dimensional network regression, cutting the error rate from s log d/n0 to s log d/n when informative source networks are available.

desk verdict The core oracle transfer theorem for ER-network regression is plausible and worth refereeing, but the appendix is missing the proof of Theorem 2.1, the debiasing proof has an unacknowledged sign mismatch with Algorithm 1, and the fully adaptive Trans-NCR has no theoretical guarantee. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19979 v2 pith:DLZYE52R submitted 2025-04-28 cs.LG stat.ME

Liyuan Wang , Jiachen Chen , Kathryn L. Lunetta , Danyang Huang , Huimin Cheng , Debarghya Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGstat.ME MSC 62J0705C80

keywords networkconvolutionalregressiontransferlearningneighborhoodaggregationdomainshifthigh-dimensionallassorestrictedstrongconvexityErdős–Rényirandomgraphsourcedetection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that transfer learning provably accelerates coefficient recovery in high-dimensional regression when the data are networked rather than independent. It proposes a network convolutional regression model, in which each response depends on its own features plus the normalized aggregate of its neighbors' features, and a two-step estimator that pools target and informative source networks to get a rough estimate, then debiases it using only target data. The main theorem bounds the squared estimation error by $s\log d/n$ in the sparse, small-gap regime, replacing the target-only rate $s\log d/n_0$ with the pooled rate, so that informative source nodes behave as if they were additional target nodes. The proof works through a new restricted strong convexity condition for the network-dependent design, with network density entering only through a logarithmic factor in the failure probability. If the result is right, it gives a concrete statistical reason to borrow related networks when the target network is small, together with a minimum-average-degree condition that tells when a source network is too sparse to help.

What carries the argument

Two objects carry the argument. The first is the normalized network-convolutional design $Z = (A^*X, X)$ with $A^* = A/\sqrt{(n-1)p}$, which rescales each node's neighbor aggregate so that convolutional and self features have comparable variance; this is what keeps the two coefficient blocks $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ at the same convergence rate and keeps network density out of the leading error term. The second, more load-bearing object is the transfer-bias identity $\delta_A = \sum_k (n_k/n)\delta_k$, which expresses the pooled estimator's bias as an $h$-bounded weighted average of the source contrasts and is exactly what the debiasing step estimates; it is also what converts the error bound into the terms $h^2 \wedge \lambda_\gamma h$ and $h^2 \wedge \lambda_\delta h$. Underneath both sits Theorem 4.1, a restricted strong convexity condition for the dependent design, $u^{\top}Z^{\top}Zu/n \ge \kappa\|u\|_2^2 - C\log d\,\sqrt{\Psi(p)/n}\,\|u\|_1\|u\|_2$ with $\Psi(p) \sim 1/(-4p\log p)$ for small $p$, which replaces the standard restricted eigenvalue assumption and encodes how network density erodes the convexity margin.

What would settle it

Run Oracle Trans-NCR on simulated data where target and source features are drawn from different covariances while the coefficient contrasts stay bounded by $h$; if the squared error systematically exceeds $C[s\lambda_\gamma^2 + (h^2 \wedge \lambda_\gamma h) + (h^2 \wedge \lambda_\delta h)]$ beyond the stated constants, the shared-$\Sigma_X$ assumption is doing the load-bearing work. A second check: generate graphs with positively correlated edges, where Lemma S.4's independent-edge norm bounds fail, and test whether the failure probability $\sum_k e^{\log n_k - n_k p_k/c}$ still controls the estimator's deviations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.3: the Oracle Trans-NCR estimator -- a pooled lasso over target plus informative sources, followed by a target-only debiasing lasso -- recovers the target coefficients $\gamma_0 = (\beta_0^{\top}, \beta_1^{\top})^{\top}$ with squared error at most $C[s\lambda_\gamma^2 + (h^2 \wedge \lambda_\gamma h) + (h^2 \wedge \lambda_\delta h)]$ with probability at least $1 - d^{-1} - \sum_k n_k^{-1} - \sum_k e^{\log n_k - n_k p_k/c}$, where $h$ bounds the $\ell_1$ distance between source and target coefficient vectors and $\lambda_\gamma, \lambda_\delta$ are the two tuning parameters. In the sparse regime with small $h$, the bound simplifies to order $s\log d/n$, the rate a lasso would achieve if all informative source nodes were target nodes. The engine is a bias identity: when every domain shares the feature covariance $\Sigma_X$, the pooled estimator's limiting bias $\delta_A$ equals the weighted average $\sum_k (n_k/n)\delta_k$ of the source contrasts, so a single target-only debiasing step can pull the estimate onto the target parameter. The paper further claims that the data-driven Trans-NCR -- rank sources by an estimated discrepancy, screen the top features, and Q-aggregate candidate estimators -- matches the oracle in simulations under both Erdős–Rényi and stochastic block model graphs, and that it improves out-of-sample prediction of Sina Weibo user activity over target-only baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every domain shares the same feature covariance $\Sigma_X$ (Condition C1): that equality is what turns the pooled estimator's bias into the weighted average $\delta_A = \sum_k (n_k/n)\delta_k$, and the paper notes the debiasing step has no proven guarantee if source and target feature distributions differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the sparse, small-$h$ regime the target estimation error falls from $s\log d/n_0$ to $s\log d/n$, so informative source nodes contribute to the target estimate as if they were additional target nodes, not merely as regularizers.
Transfer is not automatic: the probability guarantee requires $n_k p_k \gg \log n_k$ for every network in the pool, so a source graph whose average degree grows too slowly cannot be reliably borrowed, and dense source networks inflate $\lambda_\gamma$ through the term $\log d\,\max_k\{n_k p_k\}/n$.
Heterogeneous network densities are provably tolerable: Theorem 4.3 allows each source and the target to have different edge probabilities $p_k$, and the Weibo application shows a source network roughly ten times denser than the target still transferring useful signal.
When the informative sources are unknown, the data-driven Trans-NCR procedure -- discrepancy ranking, sure screening, Q-aggregation -- is claimed to reproduce the oracle's error in simulations, so the screening step is not the bottleneck; the bottleneck is the domain gap $h$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A sharpness check the paper does not run: plot empirical SSE of Oracle Trans-NCR against the exact curve $s\log d/n$ while varying the pooled sample size; the declining SSE curves in Figure 2(a) are consistent with the rate but do not by themselves confirm it.
The theory stops at Erdős–Rényi graphs, but the simulations already show the method working under stochastic block models; the natural conjecture, which the paper flags as open, is that the same two-step debias bound survives for exchangeable random graphs because the block model changes the edge-distribution constant rather than the form of the norm bounds.
The shared-$\Sigma_X$ assumption suggests a diagnostic the paper does not develop: estimate the feature covariance separately in each domain; when the estimates disagree, the bias identity $\delta_A = \sum_k (n_k/n)\delta_k$ loses its footing and practitioners should down-weight sources with divergent covariances.
The bound predicts a phase transition in the source-target gap: for fixed target size, the error should stop improving once $h$ exceeds roughly $\sqrt{\log d / n_0}$, and the vanishing gains in Figure 2(b) as $\delta$ approaches 0.6 are consistent with such a transition.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the transfer learning analysis for high-dimensional network-convolutional regression under Erdős–Rényi dependence. The RSC bound in Theorem 4.1, the target-only lasso rate in Theorem 4.2, and especially the oracle transfer rate in Theorem 4.3 are not in the prior i.i.d. transfer learning literature. The proof strategy—handling the dependent design via Hanson–Wright and Bandeira–van Handel—is substantial and, as far as I can tell, mostly sound. The model itself is a reasonable statistical formalization of GCN-style neighborhood aggregation, and the simulation and Weibo results are suggestive even if not conclusive.

There are real soft spots, in increasing order of concern. First, Theorem 2.1's proof is said to be in Section S.4.4, but that section only proves Lemma S.5 (the expectation of ZᵀZ). The asymptotic normality proof is absent. That is a simple gap to fix, but it must be fixed.

Second, the debiasing step in the proof of Theorem 4.3 (Appendix S.3.2, Step 3) minimizes ||y − Ẑ(γ̂_A − δ)||² while Algorithm 1 uses γ̂_A + δ. Either sign convention can be made to work, but the paper never acknowledges the switch, and the proof's algebra depends on the minus version. An unaddressed sign mismatch in a theoretical paper is exactly the kind of thing referees should catch.

Third, the headline method Trans-NCR—the adaptive, unknown-source version—has no theorem. Theorem 4.3 covers only Oracle Trans-NCR. The source detection and Q-aggregation are described and simulated, but no rate is proven for them. That is a scope gap, not necessarily fatal, but the abstract and intro suggest more than the theory delivers.

I disagree with the stress-test note about covariance shift. Condition C1 explicitly states a common covariance matrix Σ_X across all domains, and the paper even states the assumption in Section 3.2. So the proof's use of a common Σ_Z is internal to the stated assumptions. The equal-covariance condition is a genuine limitation—the paper acknowledges it and does not relax it—but it is not a hidden flaw in the theorem. The stress-test's claim that C1 allows different Σ_X,k appears to misread the condition.

No code or data are provided, so the empirical claims are not independently checkable. That matters, but it is secondary to the proof and consistency issues above.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. The core contribution is novel and the main theorem is plausible. But the missing proof, the sign mismatch, and the lack of theory for the adaptive method all need to be addressed before I would trust the results as stated.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a high-dimensional network convolutional regression (NCR) model y = A*X β0 + X β1 + ε under an Erdős–Rényi random graph assumption, together with a transfer-learning framework. The Oracle Trans-NCR algorithm first runs an ℓ1-penalized regression pooling the target and transferable source data, then debiases using target-only data; the Trans-NCR variant adds source screening and Q-aggregation when the transferable set is unknown. The main theoretical claim (Theorem 4.3) is that, under Conditions C1–C4 and a contrast budget h, the Oracle Trans-NCR estimator achieves error of order sλγ² + (h²∧λγh) + (h²∧λδh), which in the sparse small-h regime gives s log d / n, faster than the target-only rate s log d / n0. The paper also proves an RSC condition for the NCR design, a target-only lasso rate, and reports simulations and a Sina Weibo application.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper extends transfer learning from i.i.d. high-dimensional regression to network-dependent observations in a genuinely nontrivial way. The explicit dependence of λγ on the network densities pk, the ER-based RSC inequality, and the separation of the transfer bias into contrast-controlled terms are substantive technical contributions. The authors are honest that the theoretical guarantee is for the oracle setting and that Trans-NCR itself is only empirically validated. At the same time, the central result is currently not fully supported as written: the debiasing estimator in Algorithm 1 and the estimator analyzed in the proof of Theorem 4.3 have opposite signs, and one stated theorem (Theorem 2.1) is left without a proof despite a pointer to a supplement section that does not contain it. The paper also ships no code, and the proofs are not machine-checked, so the correctness claim rests entirely on the manuscript text.

major comments (3)

[Algorithm 1, Eq. (3.3), and Supplement S.3.2] Algorithm 1 defines δ̂A = argminδ (1/(2n0))||y0 − Ẑ0(γ̂A + δ)||₂² + λδ||δ||₁ and outputs γ̂0 = γ̂A + δ̂A, whereas Section 3.2 defines δA = γA − γ0, so that γ0 = γA − δA. The proof of Theorem 4.3 in Supplement S.3.2, Step 3, analyzes the objective ||y0 − Ẑ0(γ̂A − δ)||₂². With the plus sign in the algorithm, the estimated correction has the opposite sign of the bias defined in the main text; with the minus sign in the proof, the estimator analyzed is not the one stated in Algorithm 1. These two versions must be reconciled before Theorem 4.3 can be considered proven for the proposed procedure.
[Theorem 2.1 and Remark 2.2] Theorem 2.1 claims √n0(γ̂OLS − γ) ⇒ N(0, σ² I₂ ⊗ ΣX^{-1}) and Remark 2.2 says the proof is deferred to Section S.4.4. Section S.4.4 contains only the proof of Lemma S.5, which establishes n^{-1}E[Z⊤Z] = I₂ ⊗ ΣX; there is no argument for the stochastic convergence, the covariance of the limiting distribution, or the role of the sub-Gaussian error condition. The theorem should either be proved in the supplement or removed from the main text.
[Section 3.2 and Condition C1] The derivation of δA = Σk (nk/n)δk in Section 3.2 uses the assumption that var(X) = ΣX for all domains; the same assumption appears as Condition C1 in Section 4.1, so Theorem 4.3 is internally consistent. The scope concern is load-bearing for the paper's broader claims: if source and target feature distributions differ in their second moments, δA becomes a matrix-weighted average of the δk's and the bound ∥δA∥1 ≤ h used in Steps 1–3 of the proof of Theorem 4.3 no longer follows. The paragraph after C1 states that this assumption can be relaxed but provides no relaxation. Please state prominently in the abstract and introduction that the proven transfer acceleration requires a common feature covariance across domains, and either provide the relaxation or leave it explicitly as an unproven extension.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2, after Eq. (3.4)] The sentence 'Since each δA bounded by h' should read 'Since each δk is bounded by h'; δA is the weighted average whose bound is being derived.
[Algorithm S.2, Step 3] Step 3 of Algorithm S.2 says 'run the Oracle Trans-Lasso algorithm', but the procedure described is the Oracle Trans-NCR algorithm; the naming should be corrected to avoid confusion.
[Supplement S.3.2, Step 3] The definition of λδ as 'λδ = 2{Ẑ0⊤ε0 + Ẑ0⊤(Z0 − Ẑ0)β0}' is missing the ℓ∞ norm and the factor 1/n0; as written it is not the oracle inequality condition used in the Hölder step immediately below.
[Section 3.3] The text 'We estimate Σδk by its sample version' should read 'we estimate the discrepancy vector δk' (or 'the quantity Rk'); the displayed b∆k is a vector in R^{2d}, not a matrix.
[Theorem 4.3] In the probability bound, the final sum over k of exp(log nk − nk pk/c) contains an unspecified constant c; specifying that c is universal, or giving its value, would make the non-asymptotic statement precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transfer-learning rate is derived from explicit assumptions and concentration inequalities, not from fitting or self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 4.3) is derived from the model assumptions (C1)-(C4), the RSC bound of Theorem 4.1, and the transferability definition ||δ_k||_1 ≤ h. The bias δ_A is shown to be a sample-size weighted average of the source contrasts when the common covariance assumption holds, so ||δ_A||_1 ≤ h follows from the definition of the transferable set, not from a fitted value. The debiasing step estimates δ_A using only target data, and the final error bound combines the transferring-step error with the debiasing-step error; no constant is calibrated to data and then renamed as a prediction. The paper borrows the transfer-learning framework of Li et al. (2022), but that is an acknowledged external framework, and the network-specific RSC and concentration arguments are proved self-contained in the supplement. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The only scope limitations are explicit assumptions (common Σ_X, ER network model, sub-Gaussianity), which are stated as conditions rather than hidden definitions of the target result; the data-driven source-selection step (Algorithm S.2) lacks a dedicated theorem, but that is a completeness gap, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard high-dimensional sparsity assumptions, sub-Gaussianity, the Erdős-Rényi random graph model, and equal feature covariances across domains. No new physical or model entity is postulated. The most fragile item is the common covariance assumption, because it is both an axiom and the mechanism that makes the debiasing bias formula exact.

free parameters (4)

h (source-target contrast budget) = unknown, not estimated
The theorem rates depend on h = max_{k in A} ||δ_k||_1. In practice h is unknown and the algorithm treats it as a theoretical quantity, making the stated rate an oracle bound.
Regularization hyperparameters λγ and λδ = C1 sqrt(log d/n) + C2 ..., C3 sqrt(log d/n0)
Algorithm 1 specifies these up to constants C1-C3, which the theory requires to be sufficiently large but does not compute. In practice they require tuning.
Trans-NCR hyperparameters L, t*, c0, λθ = L = predefined, t* = ceil(n*/3), c0 in (0,1), λθ > 0
Algorithm S.2 uses these to construct candidate sets and aggregate models. They are chosen by hand or heuristic, with no theoretical guidance for the unknown-source setting.
Network densities p_k = p̂_k = #edges / (n_k(n_k-1)/2)
The normalized adjacency matrix A* uses p_k, which is unknown in the algorithm and estimated from each observed network. The theory treats p_k as a true model parameter satisfying Condition C3.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The target and source networks are generated as directed Erdős-Rényi graphs with i.i.d. edges and no self-loops.
Used in Section 2.2 and throughout the appendix to obtain row-wise independence of the design and concentration bounds on A*.
domain assumption Features are independent sub-Gaussian vectors with common covariance Σ_X across all domains, and eigenvalues of Σ_X are bounded away from zero and infinity.
Condition C1 in Section 4.1; it is also the basis for the bias formula δ_A = Σ n_k δ_k / n in Section 3.2.
domain assumption Noise terms are independent centered sub-Gaussian random variables.
Condition C2 in Section 4.1, used for concentration of Z^T ε and the lasso error analysis.
domain assumption Network density satisfies n_k p_k >> log n_k ∨ s log^2 d and p_k log d = o(1) for each domain.
Condition C3 in Section 4.1. This is a restrictive condition that requires enough expected degree and very sparse graphs, and it is used in every concentration step.
domain assumption The sparsity s = ||γ0||_0 is much smaller than the feature dimension d.
Strong sparsity is introduced in Section 2.2 and is standard for high-dimensional lasso theory.
domain assumption The coefficient gap between each transferable source and the target is bounded by h, i.e. ||δ_k||_1 ≤ h.
Defines the h-level transferable set A in Section 3.1 and controls the bias terms in Theorem 4.3.
domain assumption Adjacency A, features X, and noise ε are independent of each other.
Used implicitly in Lemma S.5 for E[X^T A X] = 0 and throughout the proof of the design covariance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transfer Learning Under High-Dimensional Network Convolutional Regression Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLZYE52R

@misc{pith2026250419979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transfer Learning Under High-Dimensional Network Convolutional Regression Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLZYE52R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19979}
}

read the original abstract

Transfer learning enhances model performance by utilizing knowledge from related domains, particularly when labeled data is scarce. While existing research addresses transfer learning under various distribution shifts in independent settings, handling dependencies in networked data remains challenging. To address this challenge, we propose a high-dimensional transfer learning framework based on network convolutional regression (NCR), inspired by the success of graph convolutional networks (GCNs). The NCR model incorporates random network structure by allowing each node's response to depend on its features and the aggregated features of its neighbors, capturing local dependencies effectively. Our methodology includes a two-step transfer learning algorithm that addresses domain shift between source and target networks, along with a source detection mechanism to identify informative domains. Theoretically, we analyze the lasso estimator in the context of a random graph based on the Erdos-Renyi model assumption, demonstrating that transfer learning improves convergence rates when informative sources are present. Empirical evaluations, including simulations and a real-world application using Sina Weibo data, demonstrate substantial improvements in prediction accuracy, particularly when labeled data in the target domain is limited.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19979 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** SSE under SBM graph model of Oracle-Trans-NCR (red), Trans-NCR (purple), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., and Adamic, L. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web , pages 519--528

work page 2012
[2]

Bandeira, A. S. and Van Handel, R. (2016). Sharp nonasymptotic bounds on the norm of random matrices with independent entries. Annals of Probability

work page 2016
[3]

Cai, T. T. and Pu, H. (2024). Transfer learning for nonparametric regression: Non-asymptotic minimax analysis and adaptive procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12272

arXiv 2024
[4]

Cai, T. T. and Wei, H. (2021). Transfer learning for nonparametric classification: Minimax rate and adaptive classifier. The Annals of Statistics , 49(1):100--128

work page 2021
[5]

Candes, E. J. and Tao, T. (2005). Decoding by linear programming. IEEE transactions on information theory , 51(12):4203--4215

work page 2005
[6]

Chen, P.-Y., Wu, S.-y., and Yoon, J. (2004). The impact of online recommendations and consumer feedback on sales. International Conference on Information Systems

work page 2004
[7]

Dai, D., Rigollet, P., and Zhang, T. (2012). Deviation optimal learning using greedy q-aggregation. The Annals of Statistics , 40(3):1878--1905

work page 2012
[8]

Daum \'e III, H. (2009). Frustratingly easy domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.1815

arXiv 2009

Show all 43 references

[9]

and R\'enyi, A

Erd\"os, P. and R\'enyi, A. (1959). On random graphs i. Publ. math. debrecen , 6(290-297):18

1959
[10]

and Lv, J

Fan, J. and Lv, J. (2008). Sure independence screening for ultrahigh dimensional feature space. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 70(5):849--911

2008
[11]

and Lempitsky, V

Ganin, Y. and Lempitsky, V. (2015). Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1180--1189. PMLR

2015
[12]

and Jaakkola, T

Honorio, J. and Jaakkola, T. (2014). Tight bounds for the expected risk of linear classifiers and pac-bayes finite-sample guarantees. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 384--392. PMLR

2014
[13]

Kipf, T. N. and Welling, M. (2016). Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

2016 arXiv
[14]

Kipf, T. N. and Welling, M. (2017). Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2017
[15]

and Martinet, G

Kpotufe, S. and Martinet, G. (2021). Marginal singularity and the benefits of labels in covariate-shift. The Annals of Statistics , 49(6):3299--3323

2021
[16]

and Rinaldo, A

Lei, J. and Rinaldo, A. (2015). Consistency of spectral clustering in stochastic block models. The Annals of Statistics , 43(1):215--237

2015
[17]

T., and Li, H

Li, S., Cai, T. T., and Li, H. (2022). Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation and minimax optimality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 84(1):149--173

2022
[18]

T., and Li, H

Li, S., Cai, T. T., and Li, H. (2023). Transfer learning in large-scale gaussian graphical models with false discovery rate control. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 118(543):2171--2183

2023
[19]

T., and Li, H

Li, S., Zhang, L., Cai, T. T., and Li, H. (2024). Estimation and inference for high-dimensional generalized linear models with knowledge transfer. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 119(546):1274--1285

2024
[20]

Maity, S., Sun, Y., and Banerjee, M. (2022). Minimax optimal approaches to the label shift problem in non-parametric settings. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 23(346):1--45

2022
[21]

and Wainwright, M

Negahban, S. and Wainwright, M. J. (2012). Restricted strong convexity and weighted matrix completion: Optimal bounds with noise. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 13(1):1665--1697

2012
[22]

J., and Ravikumar, P

Negahban, S., Yu, B., Wainwright, M. J., and Ravikumar, P. (2009). A unified framework for high-dimensional analysis of m -estimators with decomposable regularizers. Advances in neural information processing systems , 22

2009
[23]

S., Guerrero, J

Olivas, E. S., Guerrero, J. D. M., Martinez-Sober, M., Magdalena-Benedito, J. R., Serrano, L., et al. (2009). Handbook of research on machine learning applications and trends: Algorithms, methods, and techniques: Algorithms, methods, and techniques . IGI global

2009
[24]

and Sirota, L

Ostrovsky, E. and Sirota, L. (2014). Exact value for subgaussian norm of centered indicator random variable. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.6749

2014 arXiv
[25]

Pan, S. J. and Yang, Q. (2009). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering , 22(10):1345--1359

2009
[26]

and Yang, Q

Pan, W. and Yang, Q. (2013). Transfer learning in heterogeneous collaborative filtering domains. Artificial intelligence , 197:39--55

2013
[27]

Pathak, R., Ma, C., and Wainwright, M. (2022). A new similarity measure for covariate shift with applications to nonparametric regression. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 17517--17530. PMLR

2022
[28]

J., and Yu, B

Raskutti, G., Wainwright, M. J., and Yu, B. (2010). Restricted eigenvalue properties for correlated gaussian designs. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11:2241--2259

2010
[29]

J., Raskutti, G., and Yu, B

Ravikumar, P., Wainwright, M. J., Raskutti, G., and Yu, B. (2011). High-dimensional covariance estimation by minimizing l1-penalized log-determinant divergence. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 5:935--980

2011
[30]

W., Cannings, T

Reeve, H. W., Cannings, T. I., and Samworth, R. J. (2021). Adaptive transfer learning. The Annals of Statistics , 49(6):3618--3649

2021
[31]

Rohe, K., Chatterjee, S., and Yu, B. (2011). Spectral clustering and the high-dimensional stochastic blockmodel. Annals of statistics , 39(4):1878--1915

2011
[32]

and Zhou, S

Rudelson, M. and Zhou, S. (2013). Reconstruction from anisotropic random measurements. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 6(59):3434--3447

2013
[33]

R., Gao, M., Lu, L., Xu, Z., Nogues, I., Yao, J., Mollura, D., and Summers, R

Shin, H.-C., Roth, H. R., Gao, M., Lu, L., Xu, Z., Nogues, I., Yao, J., Mollura, D., and Summers, R. M. (2016). Deep convolutional neural networks for computer-aided detection: Cnn architectures, dataset characteristics and transfer learning. IEEE transactions on medical imagi...

2016
[34]

and Herff, C

Steinert, L. and Herff, C. (2018). Predicting altcoin returns using social media. PloS one , 13(12):e0208119

2018
[35]

and Feng, Y

Tian, Y. and Feng, Y. (2023). Transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 118(544):2684--2697

2023
[36]

Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 58(1):267--288

1996
[37]

Tsybakov, A., Bickel, P., and Ritov, Y. (2009). Simultaneous analysis of lasso and dantzig selector. Annals of Statistics , 37(4):1705--1732

2009
[38]

Vershynin, R. (2018). High-dimensional probability: An introduction with applications in data science , volume 47. Cambridge university press

2018
[39]

Wainwright, M. J. (2019). High-dimensional statistics: A non-asymptotic viewpoint , volume 48. Cambridge university press

2019
[40]

A., Shui, C., Zhou, F., Wu, D., Xu, G., Gagn \'e , C., and Eaton, E

Wang, B., Mendez, J. A., Shui, C., Zhou, F., Wu, D., Xu, G., Gagn \'e , C., and Eaton, E. (2023). Gap minimization for knowledge sharing and transfer. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 24(33):1--57

2023
[41]

Wu, F., Souza, A., Zhang, T., Fifty, C., Yu, T., and Weinberger, K. (2019). Simplifying graph convolutional networks. In International conference on machine learning , pages 6861--6871. PMLR

2019
[42]

C., and Wijmenga, C

Zhernakova, A., Van Diemen, C. C., and Wijmenga, C. (2009). Detecting shared pathogenesis from the shared genetics of immune-related diseases. Nature Reviews Genetics , 10(1):43--55

2009
[43]

Zoph, B., Vasudevan, V., Shlens, J., and Le, Q. V. (2018). Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 8697--8710

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., and Adamic, L. (2012). The role of social networks in information diffusion. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web , pages 519--528

work page 2012

[2] [2]

Bandeira, A. S. and Van Handel, R. (2016). Sharp nonasymptotic bounds on the norm of random matrices with independent entries. Annals of Probability

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Cai, T. T. and Pu, H. (2024). Transfer learning for nonparametric regression: Non-asymptotic minimax analysis and adaptive procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12272

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Cai, T. T. and Wei, H. (2021). Transfer learning for nonparametric classification: Minimax rate and adaptive classifier. The Annals of Statistics , 49(1):100--128

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Candes, E. J. and Tao, T. (2005). Decoding by linear programming. IEEE transactions on information theory , 51(12):4203--4215

work page 2005

[6] [6]

Chen, P.-Y., Wu, S.-y., and Yoon, J. (2004). The impact of online recommendations and consumer feedback on sales. International Conference on Information Systems

work page 2004

[7] [7]

Dai, D., Rigollet, P., and Zhang, T. (2012). Deviation optimal learning using greedy q-aggregation. The Annals of Statistics , 40(3):1878--1905

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Daum \'e III, H. (2009). Frustratingly easy domain adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.1815

arXiv 2009