Papers › A Graphical Comparison of Screening Designs using Support Recovery Probabilities
A Graphical Comparison of Screening Designs using Support Recovery Probabilities
Kade Young, Maria L. Weese, Jonathan W. Stallrich, Byran J. Smucker, David J. Edwards
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
A screening experiment attempts to identify a subset of important effects using a relatively small number of experimental runs. Given the limited run size and a large number of possible effects, penalized regression is a popular tool used to analyze screening designs. In particular, an automated implementation of the Gauss-Dantzig selector has been widely recommended to compare screening design construction methods. Here, we illustrate potential reproducibility issues that arise when comparing screening designs via simulation, and recommend a graphical method, based on screening probabilities, which compares designs by evaluating them along the penalized regression solution path. This method can be implemented using simulation, or, in the case of lasso, by using exact local lasso sign recovery probabilities. Our approach circumvents the need to specify tuning parameters associated with regularization methods, leading to more reliable design comparisons. This article contains supplementary materials including code to implement the proposed methods.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections