Score and compare covariance estimates with precise's assessor panel. Use when you need to judge an estimate out-of-sample or rank competing estimators — and especially in high dimensions, where the plain held-out likelihood is misleading.
Scanned 9/1/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add microprediction/precise --skill score-covariance-estimate --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Score Covariance Estimate?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/microprediction-score-covariance-estimate)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: score-covariance-estimate
description: Score and compare covariance estimates with precise's assessor panel. Use when you need to judge an estimate out-of-sample or rank competing estimators — and especially in high dimensions, where the plain held-out likelihood is misleading.
---
# Score / rank covariance estimates
```python
from precise import all_assessors, assessor_from_name
for A in all_assessors():
s = A().score(cov, X_test=X_test, true_cov=Sigma_true) # higher = better
```
- `cov` is the estimate to judge; `X_test` is held-out data (rows = observations); `true_cov` is the
population covariance (only available in simulation).
- Each assessor exposes `needs_data` and `needs_truth`; pass what it needs. Truth-free assessors work on
real data, truth-requiring ones (e.g. `FrobeniusToTruth`) only in simulation.
- All assessors follow **higher = better**, so you can rank or argmax directly.
## The one rule that matters in high dimensions
**Do not rank estimators by the held-out Gaussian log-likelihood when `p` is comparable to `n`.** The
likelihood is dominated by the smallest, unidentifiable eigenvalues of the estimate; empirically it ranks
estimators *below chance* in that regime. Instead use inversion-free or block judges:
| Regime / goal | Use |
|---|---|
| low dimension, well-conditioned | `LogLikelihood` (it is optimal here) |
| high dimension (`p/n` near 1 or larger) | `BlockPseudoLikelihood`, `SchurLikelihood`, `VariogramScore`, `FrobeniusToTruth` (sim only) |
| economic / portfolio relevance | `GMVVariance` (out-of-sample minimum-variance variance) |
| forecasting a **variance** from a noisy proxy | a QLIKE / Bregman-consistent loss, **not** RMSE on the proxy — RMSE on a noisy variance proxy can rank inconsistently |
`SchurLikelihood(gamma=...)` is a tunable bridge: `gamma=1` is the full likelihood (fragile in high-d),
`gamma=0` the robust block-diagonal one, interior values better-conditioned than either.
## Don't over-read the numbers
- Rankings are **ensemble-sensitive**: a result on one data-generating process need not transfer. If the
conclusion matters, sweep several generators and report per-regime (see the
**assess-covariance-method** skill).
- A lower point error (RMSE) is not a tradable or actionable signal by itself.
- If you attach significance to a ranking, the loss differentials are usually dependent (overlapping
windows, correlated assets); naive standard errors overstate significance — see the inference section of
the **assess-covariance-method** skill.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!