Thanks @QB3 that sounds doable

How would we pass the current design ? y does not have a default value in Solver.solve, so it's required. Making it a keyword arg may break some stuff.

Thoughts @Badr-MOUFAD @QB3 ?

It is true that the form of the problem is a bit different but it fits our framework as we can write the datafit as $F(y, X\beta)$

As you mentioned @mathurin, while it breaks our conventions, I don’t think it would break the code.
We can create a new datafit and pass in (X, XTy) to Solver.solve

Thinking about it, adding support of this case, we will have in total three cases that don't abide by the conventions: Cox, and LinearSVC.
Perhaps, we should start thinking about a more flexible API that encloses all these cases.

There's a working (withoutintercept) implementation with minimal overhead (we inherit most of the stuff from Quadratic) in #250

I need to get the intercept update step right, but it was not painful at all to implement !

Thanks @QB3, this would be great!

Just to add a bit more context: In statistical genetics, we have extremely high dimensional data (10s of millions of features) that we'd like to use to predict a trait (e.g. blood cholesterol levels) or disease (e.g. diabetes). Due to privacy, large cohorts that collect the data don't release either X or y, but they release "summary statistics" in the form of $X^\top y$.

So, we have to resort to approximations of $X$. In previous work, people relied on the form:

$$ \frac{1}{n}||y - X\beta||_2^2 = \frac{1}{n}\Big[y^\top y -2\beta^\top X^\top y + \beta^\top X^\top X\beta\Big] $$

We usually assume both $y$ and $X$ are standardized. The first term is a constant. The second term can be defined based on the summary statistics. The third term can be approximated using small, publicly available data (under the assumption that covariance $X^\top X$ between features is roughly the same across cohorts).

Given this, two options are possible for the implementation:

1. Provide external $X$ that has roughly similar characteristics to censored data (what @QB3 suggested).
2. Provide external $X^\top X$ (which is a sparse, block-diagonal matrix). This is what practitioners in the field usually do. One main benefit of this second approach is that some of the larger cohorts that release $X^\top y$ can also release $X^\top X$ estimated from their data, because it doesn't violate privacy agreements.

Happy to help with the implementation or testing.

• For the implementation passing X and Xty see a working draft implementation at WIP ENH add censored quadratic df #250
• For the one with XtX I guess we need to do something else, like directly modifying our GramCD solver to support being passed XtX and Xty as arguments. I'll give this a try too