Table 6. Lasso vs elastic-net.
par. | obs. stat. | p-value |
sample size () | 78.683 | <0.001 |
number of features () | 123.014 | <0.001 |
saturation () | 26.688 | <0.001 |
signal-to-noise () | 0.804 | 0.781 |
correlation () | 115.291 | <0.001 |
sample size vs number of features () | 6.341 | <0.001 |
sample size vs saturation () | 2.212 | <0.001 |
sample size vs signal-to-noise () | 0.771 | 0.932 |
sample size vs correlation () | 1.821 | <0.001 |
number of features vs saturation () | 9.788 | <0.001 |
number of features vs signal-to-noise () | 0.652 | 0.991 |
number of features vs correlation () | 6.168 | <0.001 |
saturation vs signal-to-noise () | 0.735 | 0.971 |
saturation vs correlation () | 1.233 | 0.084 |
signal-to-noise vs correlation () | 0.544 | 0.999 |
Permutation tests for equality of the group distributions using distance components analysis (lines 2 to 6), and permutation F-tests for the presence of 2-by-2 interactions (lines 7 to 16), in the comparison of lasso vs elastic-net. Results based on 999 permutations.