Factor Augmented Quantile Regression Model

Meiling Hao; Xiaoyang Wei; Xu Guo; Yanlin Tang; Yanmei Shi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Factor Augmented Quantile Regression Model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that augmenting quantile regression with estimated latent factors lets one handle heavy-tailed errors, high multicollinearity, and sparse-plus-dense effects in a single high-dimensional model, with consistency rates and a…

desk verdict A well-motivated extension of FARM to quantile regression, but the main consistency theorem has an unproven key step that looks genuinely wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00275 v1 pith:R7IJKKPQ submitted 2025-08-01 stat.ME

Xiaoyang Wei , Yanlin Tang , Xu Guo , Meiling Hao , Yanmei Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62G0862J07

keywords Factor-augmentedmodelQuantileregressionConvolutionsmoothingHigh-dimensionaldataHeavy-taileddistributionFactorBootstrapinferenceSparseanddenseeffects

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 proposes a factor-augmented quantile regression (FAQR) model that combines the robustness of quantile regression with factor analysis, so that a response's conditional quantile depends on both latent common factors and idiosyncratic components. It claims this handles three difficulties at once: variables with strong correlations, heavy-tailed noise, and a mixture of dense factor effects with sparse idiosyncratic effects. The theoretical payoff is a consistency theorem for the $\ell_1$-penalized, convolution-smoothed quantile estimator when the factors are first estimated by PCA, and a bootstrap test for whether a pure factor regression is adequate. This matters for settings like macroeconomic panels, where heavy tails and multicollinearity coexist and where the paper's analysis of a monthly macroeconomic panel shows improved out-of-sample tracking over mean regression.

What carries the argument

The central object is the convolution-smoothed quantile loss $\hat{Q}_h(\theta)$, which replaces the nonsmooth check function $\rho_\tau$ by $\frac{1}{nh}\sum_i \int \rho_\tau(t)K((t - (Y_i - \hat{Z}_i'\theta))/h)\,dt$ for a symmetric kernel $K$ and bandwidth $h$. This makes the loss twice continuously differentiable, with closed-form gradient and Hessian, so the $\ell_1$-penalized problem can be solved by the I-LAMM algorithm with soft-thresholding updates instead of linear programming. The factors and idiosyncratic components are estimated beforehand by PCA, and the identifiability and factor-model assumptions are exactly the ones that make those estimates converge fast enough for the quantile regression step.

What would settle it

A reader could run the paper's own simulation at the boundary where Assumption 3 fails, namely $s=5$, $n=1000$, $d=500$ with $t_2$ errors, and check the $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ errors over replications: if the claimed $O_p(s\lambda)$ and $O_p(s^{1/2}\lambda)$ rates still hold, the stated sparsity condition is not the operative constraint, while if they fail, the method's recommended operating range is outside its proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: under Assumptions 1-4, the $\ell_1$-smoothed quantile estimator $\hat{\theta}$ with tuning parameter $\lambda \asymp s\sigma\sqrt{(\log d)(\log n)/n}$ and a suitable bandwidth $h$ satisfies $\|\hat{\theta}-\theta^*\|_2 = O_p(s^{1/2}\lambda)$ and $\|\hat{\theta}-\theta^*\|_1 = O_p(s\lambda)$, for an $s$-sparse true parameter, without requiring sub-Gaussian covariates. The authors present this as extending factor-augmented sparse regression to heavy-tailed settings and to quantile-specific heterogeneity, and they support it with a data-driven choice of $\lambda$ following the framework of reference [18], a twice-differentiable smoothed loss, and an I-LAMM optimization algorithm. They also propose a maximum-score statistic with multiplier and residual bootstrap to test $H_0: \beta^*(\tau)=0$, and report simulations showing the method matches the factor-augmented mean regression under Gaussian noise and beats it under $t_2$ noise.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 3, which requires sparsity so strong that $s((\log d)(\log n)/n)^{1/5}=o(1)$; this is much stricter than the usual $s\log d/n=o(1)$ and already fails in the paper's illustrative setting $s=5$, $n=1000$, $d=500$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 1 is right, FAQR consistently estimates both the sparse idiosyncratic coefficients and the factor coefficients in high dimensions under heavy-tailed noise, without bounded sub-Gaussian covariates.
Convolution smoothing makes the quantile objective twice differentiable, so the I-LAMM algorithm solves the penalized problem in polynomial time rather than through high-dimensional linear programming.
The bootstrap maximum-score test can detect when a latent-factor regression alone is inadequate ($H_0:\beta^*(\tau)=0$), giving practitioners a way to justify adding idiosyncratic variables.
On the monthly macroeconomic panel analyzed in Section 6, FAQR reports higher out-of-sample pseudo-$R^2$ and lower MAPE than factor-augmented mean regression, plain quantile regression, and factor-only quantile regression, especially around the 2008 crisis.
The framework gives one model that adapts to both sparse and dense predictor-response relationships, with the factor component carrying dense effects and the idiosyncratic component carrying sparse effects.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own illustrative simulation does not satisfy Assumption 3: with $s=5$, $n=1000$, $d=500$, the quantity $s((\log d)(\log n)/n)^{1/5}$ is about 2.65, yet the estimator performs well, so the stated sparsity condition is likely stronger than what the method actually needs.
Because the smoothed loss is twice differentiable with an explicit Hessian, a natural next step is debiased inference on individual coefficients, which would go beyond the paper's joint adequacy test.
Swapping the $\ell_1$ penalty for a concave penalty such as SCAD or MCP should preserve the proof's main structure, since I-LAMM only changes the thresholding step, potentially giving better selection under the same heavy-tailed noise.

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

Here’s the short version. The paper proposes factor-augmented quantile regression (FAQR), a natural merger of Fan et al.'s FARM with convolution-smoothed quantile regression. That is genuinely useful: heavy-tailed responses are exactly where FARM struggles, and the simulations bear that out. The empirical work is honest — they compare against FARM and plain QR, report TPR/FPR, and include a real-data example. The authors also openly state that the rate in their Theorem 2 is too slow for asymptotic calibration, which I appreciate.

The problem is the main theorem. In the proof of Theorem 1, Step II, they need the Hessian perturbation A1 to be o(A2), where A2 is the population Hessian term. They say this follows because s(log d log n/n)^{1/5}=o(1). On inspection, that inference does not go through. Lemma 5 gives a bound on the Hessian difference that is at least of order s r (1/h) in the relevant regime, and after the ℓ1-to-ℓ2 swap this contributes about s^{3/2} r ||δ||_2 / h. Using their own λ and the maximum allowed h ≈ sqrt(s^{1/2}λ), this is o(||δ||_2^2) only if r = o(s^{3/4}(log d log n/n)^{3/4}). For d comparable to n, r ≈ sqrt((log d log n)/n) and the condition becomes s ≫ n^{1/3}/(log n)^{1/3}, which contradicts their own Assumption 3 (s = o(n^{1/5})). So the central consistency guarantee is not proven as written. This is a proof gap, not a tuning mismatch.

There’s also the sparsity assumption: Assumption 3 is violated in the simulations (s=5, n=1000, d=500 gives about 2.6, not o(1)). And the bootstrap tests in Section 4 come with no validity theorem; the “rate not satisfactory” confession in the paper makes the test heuristic. Those secondary issues could be fixed, but the Theorem 1 gap is structural.

The idea is still worth taking seriously. The framework is sensible, the empirical results are plausible, and the proof might be repairable with stronger conditions on d relative to n or a sharper Hessian bound. As it stands, though, the paper's main theoretical claim is unsupported.

Who should read it: researchers working on high-dimensional quantile regression and factor models. I'd circulate it in a reading group to discuss the proof gap, but I wouldn't cite the consistency result yet. A serious editor should send it to referees — the authors need detailed, technical feedback on the proof — but I would not accept the current version.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a factor-augmented quantile regression (FAQR) framework that combines factor analysis with convolution-smoothed ℓ1-penalized quantile regression. The method is designed to handle high-dimensional, highly correlated, heavy-tailed data with both sparse and dense effects. The authors establish consistency rates for the regression coefficients (Theorem 1), develop a maximum-score test of factor-model adequacy with two bootstrap calibrations (Section 4), and report simulation and real-data results using FRED-MD. The supplementary material contains the proofs of the main theorems.

Significance. If the main consistency result holds, FAQR is a useful extension of factor-augmented sparse linear regression to quantile settings, filling a gap for heavy-tailed responses in high-dimensional factor models. The paper provides an implementable algorithm (I-LAMM) and a data-driven tuning scheme, and the empirical comparison against FARM and QR is informative. The bootstrap testing idea is relevant, though its theoretical foundation is incomplete. The main theorem, however, rests on a proof step that is not fully justified as written, and the stated sparsity condition is not met in the paper's own simulations, so the theoretical and numerical claims are only partially connected.

major comments (4)

[Supplementary Materials, proof of Theorem 1, Step II] The central step of the proof asserts that A1=o(A2) because s(log d log n/n)^{1/5}=o(1), but the displayed inequalities leading to this conclusion are not fully justified. The bound A1 ≤ s∥δ∥2 · ∥...∥∞ appears to rely on an unstated norm inequality, and the max-norm bound from Lemma 5 contains several terms whose product with s must each be shown to be o(1) under the chosen h and λ. The authors should either provide a complete term-by-term verification or state the additional conditions on n, d, s, h, and λ that are needed. Since this step underpins Theorem 1, the current exposition does not establish the consistency result as written.
[Section 5.1 and Assumption 3] Assumption 3 requires s(log d log n/n)^{1/5}=o(1). In the simulations of Section 5.1, with s=5 (three nonzero β components plus two nonzero γ components), n=1000, and d=500, this quantity is approximately 2.65, so the assumption fails in the very settings used to illustrate the method. The paper should either adjust the simulation parameters to satisfy Assumption 3, or relax the assumption / revise the theorem to cover the reported settings. As it stands, the simulation results cannot be taken as numerical verification of the theoretical conditions.
[Theorem 1 and Section 2.2.4] Theorem 1 specifies a tuning parameter λ ≍ sσ√(log d log n/n), which depends on the unknown sparsity level s. The data-driven selection rule in Section 2.2.4, based on Belloni and Chernozhukov's pivotal quantity, does not involve s. The claim in Remark 3.1 that this scheme satisfies the theorem's scaling 'under appropriate conditions' is not proved. The authors should clarify the relationship between the theoretical λ and the practical rule, or provide a theorem showing that the data-driven λ yields the stated rates.
[Section 4 and Theorem 2] After noting that Theorem 2's convergence rate is 'not satisfactory' for asymptotic calibration, the paper proposes multiplier and residual bootstrap procedures without stating or proving any bootstrap consistency theorem. Since the bootstrap is used for the actual testing procedure (Section 5.2, Table 2), a formal result under H0 is needed for the inference claim to be supported. Without it, the reported size and power are purely empirical regularities.

minor comments (5)

[Supplementary Materials] The supplementary material refers to 'Theorems 3.1 and 4.1' while the main text numbers them Theorem 1 and Theorem 2; this should be harmonized.
[Figure 5] The caption says the data cover 1995:1–2008:4, while the text in Section 6 states the analysis uses January 1997 to December 2008; these dates should be made consistent.
[Table 2] In the Gaussian, d=200 row, the entry for F AQRmul is shown as a dash; please provide the actual value or explain why it is omitted.
[Theorem 1] The bandwidth condition 'max(σ/sqrt(s log d/n), σ̄g/g^2 s log d/n) ≲ h' appears garbled by the typesetting; the symbols σ̄, g, and the second term should be defined clearly.
[Section 2.2.4] The definition of Λ uses e_i as 'independently uniformly distributed error terms on (0,1)' but the subsequent quantile Q_{1-α}(Λ|Z) conditioning notation is not fully explained; a sentence clarifying how Λ is simulated and used would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the main consistency theorem is derived from external lemmas, and the only self-citation is a minor, non-load-bearing methodological reuse in the adequacy test.

full rationale

The derivation chain for Theorem 1 is not circular. The estimator is defined by the smoothed ℓ1-penalized objective (6), and the proof establishes upper and lower bounds on D(θ̂) using Lemmas 1–5, which are either quoted from Fan et al. (2023), Tan et al. (2022), and Spokoiny (2014), or proved from those ingredients directly in the supplement. Neither the statement nor the proof of Theorem 1 assumes the error bound it claims; Assumptions 1–4 state distributional, factor-model, and sparsity conditions, and Theorem 1 derives Op(s^{1/2}λ) and Op(sλ) from them. The suspected step 'since s(log d log n/n)^{1/5}=o(1), A1=o(A2)' is at most a possible proof gap, not a self-referential reduction: it is a mathematical inequality claim, not an equation that reproduces the target result by construction. The only self-citation is in Section 4: 'Following the idea of Tang et al. [24], we propose a rescaled conditional marginal score statistic.' Tang et al. [24] is a published external method used as a building block for the diagnostic test, not as the justification of the paper's central consistency claim, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Accordingly there is no circular step; the minor self-citation is not load-bearing, giving score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several standard factor-model assumptions, plus an unusually strong sparsity condition. The tuning parameter λ is chosen by a data-driven rule that does not match the theoretical scale, and the bandwidth h is set by an ad hoc formula. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Penalty tuning parameter λ = data-driven via Belloni-Chernozhukov (c0=1.1, γ=0.1)
Controls sparsity; the theory requires λ ≍ sσ sqrt(log d log n/n) but the implemented rule omits s.
Smoothing bandwidth h = max{0.05, sqrt(τ(1-τ)) (log(d+M)/n)^{1/4}}
Sets the bias-variance tradeoff of the smoothed loss; default may violate the lower bound in Theorem 1 in some settings.
Number of latent factors M = assumed fixed; estimated by eigenvalue ratio
The dimension of the factor space; theoretical results treat M as known.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: Cov(f)=I_M and B'B is diagonal (factor identifiability).
Standard for PCA-based factor estimation; Section 2.2.1.
domain assumption Assumption 2: sub-Gaussian f and u, bounded eigenvalues of B'B and of Cov(u), and weak dependence conditions.
Standard factor model conditions from Bai (2003) and Fan et al.; Section 3.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 3: θ* is s-sparse with s(log d log n/n)^{1/5}=o(1).
Unusually strong sparsity requirement, not satisfied in the paper's own simulations; Section 3.
domain assumption Assumption 4: the kernel K is twice differentiable with bounded derivatives and the conditional error density is Lipschitz with positive density at zero.
Standard regularity for smoothed quantile regression; Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Factor Augmented Quantile Regression Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R7IJKKPQ

@misc{pith2026250800275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Factor Augmented Quantile Regression Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R7IJKKPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00275}
}

abstract

Along with the widespread adoption of high-dimensional data, traditional statistical methods face significant challenges in handling problems with high correlation of variables, heavy-tailed distribution, and coexistence of sparse and dense effects. In this paper, we propose a factor-augmented quantile regression (FAQR) framework to address these challenges simultaneously within a unified framework. The proposed FAQR combines the robustness of quantile regression and the ability of factor analysis to effectively capture dependencies among high-dimensional covariates, and also provides a framework to capture dense effects (through common factors) and sparse effects (through idiosyncratic components) of the covariates. To overcome the lack of smoothness of the quantile loss function, convolution smoothing is introduced, which not only improves computational efficiency but also eases theoretical derivation. Theoretical analysis establishes the accuracy of factor selection and consistency in parameter estimation under mild regularity conditions. Furthermore, we develop a Bootstrap-based diagnostic procedure to assess the adequacy of the factor model. Simulation experiments verify the rationality of FAQR in different noise scenarios such as normal and $t_2$ distributions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

: Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso

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

work page 1996
[2]

: The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties

barticle Zou , H. : The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties . Journal of the American Statistical Association 101 ( 476 ), 1418 -- 1429 ( 2006 ) barticle

work page 2006
[3]

, Li , R

barticle Fan , J. , Li , R. : Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties . Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 ( 456 ), 1348 -- 1360 ( 2001 ) barticle

2001
[4]

: On persistence in mutual fund performance

barticle Carhart , M.M. : On persistence in mutual fund performance . The Journal of Finance 52 ( 1 ), 57 -- 82 ( 1997 ) barticle

work page 1997
[5]

, Ng , S

barticle Bai , J. , Ng , S. : Confidence intervals for diffusion index forecasts and inference for factor-augmented regressions . Econometrica 74 ( 4 ), 1133 -- 1150 ( 2006 ) barticle

work page 2006
[6]

, Xue , L

barticle Fan , J. , Xue , L. , Yao , J. : Sufficient forecasting using factor models . Journal of Econometrics 201 ( 2 ), 292 -- 306 ( 2017 ) barticle

work page 2017
[7]

: Inferential theory for factor models of large dimensions

barticle Bai , J. : Inferential theory for factor models of large dimensions . Econometrica 71 ( 1 ), 135 -- 171 ( 2003 ) barticle

work page 2003
[8]

, Liao , Y

barticle Fan , J. , Liao , Y. , Mincheva , M. : Large covariance estimation by thresholding principal orthogonal complements . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 75 ( 4 ), 603 -- 680 ( 2013 ) barticle

work page 2013

Show all 28 references

[9]

, Tan , K.M

barticle Ouyang , J. , Tan , K.M. , Xu , G. : High-dimensional inference for generalized linear models with hidden confounding . Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 ( 296 ), 1 -- 61 ( 2023 ) barticle

2023
[10]

, Ke , Y

barticle Fan , J. , Ke , Y. , Wang , K. : Factor-adjusted regularized model selection . Journal of Econometrics 216 ( 1 ), 71 -- 85 ( 2020 ) barticle

2020
[11]

, Liao , Y

barticle Fan , J. , Liao , Y. , Mincheva , M. : Are latent factor regression and sparse regression adequate? Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 ( 546 ), 1076 -- 1088 ( 2023 ) barticle

2023
[12]

, Bassett , G

barticle Koenker , R. , Bassett , G. : Regression quantiles . Econometrica 46 ( 1 ), 33 -- 50 ( 1978 ) barticle

1978
[13]

, Chernozhukov , V

bbook Koenker , R. , Chernozhukov , V. , He , X. , Peng , L. : Handbook of Quantile Regression . A Chapman & Hall book . CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group , Boca Raton, FL, USA ( 2018 ) bbook

2018
[14]

, Wang , L

barticle Tan , K.M. , Wang , L. , Zhou , W.-X. : High-dimensional quantile regression: Convolution smoothing and concave regularization . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 84 ( 1 ), 205 -- 233 ( 2022 ) barticle

2022
[15]

, Yao , Q

barticle Lam , C. , Yao , Q. : Factor modeling for high-dimensional time series: Inference for the number of factors . The Annals of Statistics 40 ( 2 ), 694 -- 726 ( 2012 ) barticle

2012
[16]

, Horenstein , A.R

barticle Ahn , S.C. , Horenstein , A.R. : Eigenvalue ratio test for the number of factors . Econometrica 81 ( 3 ), 1203 -- 1227 ( 2013 ) barticle

2013
[17]

, Li , L

barticle Li , Q. , Li , L. : Integrative factor regression and its inference for multimodal data analysis . Journal of the American Statistical Association 117 ( 540 ), 2207 -- 2221 ( 2022 ) barticle

2022
[18]

, Chernozhukov , V

barticle Belloni , A. , Chernozhukov , V. : _1 -penalized quantile regression in high-dimensional sparse models . The Annals of Statistics 39 ( 1 ), 82 -- 130 ( 2011 ) barticle

2011
[19]

, Guerre , E

barticle Fernandes , M. , Guerre , E. , Horta , E. : Smoothing quantile regressions . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 39 ( 1 ), 338 -- 357 ( 2021 ) barticle

2021
[20]

, Liu , H

barticle Fan , J. , Liu , H. , Sun , Q. , Zhang , T. : I-lamm for sparse learning: Simultaneous control of algorithmic complexity and statistical error . The Annals of Statistics 46 ( 2 ), 814 -- 841 ( 2018 ) barticle

2018
[21]

, Cheng , G

barticle Li , Q. , Cheng , G. , Fan , J. , Wang , Y. : Embracing the blessing of dimensionality in factor models . Journal of the American Statistical Association 113 ( 521 ), 380 -- 389 ( 2018 ) barticle

2018
[22]

, Pan , X

barticle He , X. , Pan , X. , Tan , K.M. , Zhou , W.-X. : Smoothed quantile regression with large-scale inference . Journal of Econometrics 232 ( 2 ), 367 -- 388 ( 2023 ) barticle

2023
[23]

, Wang , X

barticle Yan , Y. , Wang , X. , Zhang , R. : Confidence intervals and hypothesis testing for high-dimensional quantile regression: Convolution smoothing and debiasing . Journal of Machine Learning Research 24 ( 245 ), 1 -- 49 ( 2023 ) barticle

2023
[24]

, Wang , Y

barticle Tang , Y. , Wang , Y. , Wang , H.J. , Pan , Q. : Conditional marginal test for high dimensional quantile regression . Statistica Sinica 32 ( 2 ), 869 -- 892 ( 2022 ) barticle

2022
[25]

, Ng , S

barticle McCracken , M.W. , Ng , S. : Fred-md: A monthly database for macroeconomic research . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 34 ( 4 ), 574 -- 589 ( 2016 ) barticle

2016
[26]

, Machado , J.A

barticle Koenker , R. , Machado , J.A. : Goodness of fit and related inference processes for quantile regression . Journal of the American Statistical Association 94 ( 448 ), 1296 -- 1310 ( 1999 ) barticle

1999
[27]

, Li , R

bbook Fan , J. , Li , R. , Zhang , C.-H. , Zou , H. : Statistical Foundations of Data Science , 1st edn. Chapman and Hall/CRC , Boca Raton, FL, USA ( 2020 ) bbook

2020
[28]

: Bernstein - von mises theorem for growing parameter dimension (2014) https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3430 arXiv:1302.3430 [math.ST] botherref

botherref Spokoiny , V. : Bernstein - von mises theorem for growing parameter dimension (2014) https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3430 arXiv:1302.3430 [math.ST] botherref

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

: Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso

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

work page 1996

[2] [2]

: The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties

barticle Zou , H. : The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties . Journal of the American Statistical Association 101 ( 476 ), 1418 -- 1429 ( 2006 ) barticle

work page 2006

[3] [3]

, Li , R

barticle Fan , J. , Li , R. : Variable selection via nonconcave penalized likelihood and its oracle properties . Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 ( 456 ), 1348 -- 1360 ( 2001 ) barticle

2001

[4] [4]

: On persistence in mutual fund performance

barticle Carhart , M.M. : On persistence in mutual fund performance . The Journal of Finance 52 ( 1 ), 57 -- 82 ( 1997 ) barticle

work page 1997

[5] [5]

, Ng , S

barticle Bai , J. , Ng , S. : Confidence intervals for diffusion index forecasts and inference for factor-augmented regressions . Econometrica 74 ( 4 ), 1133 -- 1150 ( 2006 ) barticle

work page 2006

[6] [6]

, Xue , L

barticle Fan , J. , Xue , L. , Yao , J. : Sufficient forecasting using factor models . Journal of Econometrics 201 ( 2 ), 292 -- 306 ( 2017 ) barticle

work page 2017

[7] [7]

: Inferential theory for factor models of large dimensions

barticle Bai , J. : Inferential theory for factor models of large dimensions . Econometrica 71 ( 1 ), 135 -- 171 ( 2003 ) barticle

work page 2003

[8] [8]

, Liao , Y

barticle Fan , J. , Liao , Y. , Mincheva , M. : Large covariance estimation by thresholding principal orthogonal complements . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 75 ( 4 ), 603 -- 680 ( 2013 ) barticle

work page 2013