14
$\begingroup$

In lasso, we have a regularization term in the loss function:

$$\sum \|y-\hat{y}\|_{2} + \lambda \sum\|\beta\|_{1}$$

As the loss function is minimized, some $\beta$'s will become zero. That's what people refer to as 'sparsity'

My question is : how to add a hard constraint for 'max number of non-zero beta' , say, 10?

I suppose this is a mixed-integer programming problem: we introduce a temporary variable $s$, which only takes value of $\{0, 1\}$, so we have an extra constraint $\sum s = 10$ . Afterward, we will have $\beta = \beta_{\rm raw} \cdot s$.

Then I got stuck, how to constraint $\beta_{\rm raw}$ ?

Any insight?

| improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ what is the definition of $\beta_{raw}$? $\endgroup$ – Oguz Toragay Sep 25 '19 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ I was thinking there beta{raw} is a transitive variable that will be omitted in the end. As you can see, I don't really have a solution for this problem. $\endgroup$ – eight3 Sep 26 '19 at 6:59
11
$\begingroup$

Let $\beta_j$ be the $j$-th regression coefficient and $s_j$ the binary variable indicating whether you are including that term in the regression. To simplify the objective function, add a nonnegative variable $u_j$ representing the absolute value of $\beta_j$. The lasso term in the objective becomes $\sum_j u_j$. Now add the constraints $\beta_j \le u_j$, $-\beta_j \le u_j$ and $u_j \le M_j s_j$, where $M_j$ is an a priori upper bound on $|\beta_j|$.

The tricky part is picking reasonable values for $M_j$. Too small and you risk producing a suboptimal fit; too large and the solver may do funny things. If the problem solves quickly, you might do it by trial and error: pick values; solve; increase the values; solve again; iterate until the regression coefficients do not change from one run to the next. If the solution time is not short, maybe start with a regression with no limit on the number of terms (and no $s$ variables), then guess $M_j$ values from the fitted $\beta_j$.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A similar approach is used in this paper. Picking reasonable values for $M_j$ is also discussed. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Dalmeijer Sep 26 '19 at 12:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the objective function contains a ridge regularization term, you could also consider imposing sparsity via second order cone constraints, i.e., replacing $\Vert \beta\Vert_2^2$ in the objective function with $\sum_i \theta_i$ where $\beta_i^2 \leq \theta_i s_i$. This is MISOCP representable via $$\Vert (2 \beta_i, \theta_i-s_i)^\top\Vert_2 \leq \theta_i+s_i.$$ This approach has the benefit of not requiring any big-M constraints. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Cory-Wright Sep 26 '19 at 15:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Or if you wanted to get really sophisticated you could also decompose the problem and use a cutting-plane method (this is faster than the MISOCP approach but requires a bit more work). There is a Julia implementation for sparse regression problems available here. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Cory-Wright Sep 26 '19 at 15:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.