This discussion is a continuation of Tutz and Gertheiss (2016)’s paper, where we focus on the importance of the coding of effects in regularized categorical and ordinal regression. We show that, though that an appropriate regularization is profitable for any coding, the choice of a relevant coding can prevail over the one of the regularization term for revealing structures. We focus on predictors though the issues raised also apply to responses. We illustrate our point on a classic data set.
BühlmannPVan De GeerS (2011) Statistics for High-dimensional Data: Methods, Theory and Applications. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
2.
ChiquetJGrandvaletYCharbonnierC (2012) Sparsity in sign-coherent groups of variables via the cooperative-lasso. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 6, 795–830.
SerlinRCLevinJR (1985) Teaching how to derive directly interpretable coding schemes for multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 223–38.
7.
TibshiraniR (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 58, 267–88.
8.
TutzGGertheissJ (2016) Regularized regression for categorical data. Statistical Modelling.
9.
WolbergWHMangasarianOL (1990) Multisurface method of pattern separation for medical diagnosis applied to breast cytology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87, 9193–96.
10.
YuanMLinY (2006) Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 68, 49–67.
