Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 49 references

Sparse and Low-bias Estimation of High Dimensional Vector Autoregressive Models

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read UoI-VAR, a two-stage bootstrap estimator, recovers sparse, low-bias coefficients in high-dimensional VAR models where cross-validated L1 regularization overfits, the paper claims.

desk verdict UoI-VAR is a promising empirical method for sparse high-dimensional VARs, but its theory covers only the intersection step and the paper is upfront about that gap. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11464 v3 pith:G3ULTH27 submitted 2019-08-29 stat.ME

Trevor D. Ruiz , Sharmodeep Bhattacharyya , Mahesh Balasubramanian , Kristofer E. Bouchard This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62M1062J0762F40
keywords vectorautoregressionhigh-dimensionaltimeseriesL1regularizationsparsity-biastrade-offUnionofIntersectionsmovingblockbootstrapGrangercausalitylow-biasestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the standard way to fit high-dimensional vector autoregressions — $L_1$-regularized maximum likelihood with cross-validation — sits on a less favorable part of the sparsity-bias trade-off: it tends to overfit and return dense models with many false nonzero coefficients. The authors propose UoI-VAR, which separates feature selection from parameter estimation: bootstrap resampling with an intersection step keeps only coefficients that recur across resamples, and a union step averages low-bias OLS fits on the chosen supports. Simulation evidence shows UoI-VAR recovers the true sparsity pattern much more accurately with only a minor loss in model fit, and produces less-biased estimates, with the advantage growing with dimension. The paper therefore claims a practical route to simultaneous causal discovery and forecasting in high-dimensional time series.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Union of Intersections estimator for VAR models (UoI-VAR), an adaptation of the Union of Intersections algorithmic framework. Its intersection step draws $B_1$ moving-block bootstrap samples, fits a LASSO path on each, and for each regularization strength keeps only coefficient locations that appear in at least fraction $s$ of samples; for $s=1$, the strict intersection, the paper proves that the chosen support contains no false positives with high probability. Its union step then draws $B_2$ fresh bootstrap pairs, computes unregularized OLS on each candidate support, selects the support with the best predictive fit on the held-out bootstrap sample, and averages the selected low-bias estimates. The separation of selection from estimation is what lets the procedure pursue sparsity and low bias simultaneously.

What would settle it

Run the full UoI-VAR and its intersection-only version on a simulated sparse VAR where the true support is known; if the final union step produces more false positives or higher mean squared error than the intersection support alone, or if UoI-VAR's false-positive count is not below cross-validated LASSO's, the paper's central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $L_1$-regularized maximum-likelihood estimation of VAR parameters with cross-validated penalty selection has a structural tendency to overfit: it produces relatively dense estimates, inflating false positives, while the nonzero coefficients are shrunk and therefore biased. UoI-VAR is claimed to break this trade-off by (i) using a moving-block bootstrap and a thresholded intersection across many LASSO fits to form candidate support sets that contain no false positives with high probability, and (ii) re-estimating parameters on each candidate support by unregularized OLS and averaging the best-fitting support's estimate across bootstrap samples. The paper reports simulations, including a 160-dimensional $\mathrm{VAR}(1)$ with 99.38 percent sparsity, where UoI-VAR matches or beats LASSO and MCP in model fit ($R^2$, BIC), is more stable across realizations, and is much closer to the true support with less average bias. It also states that the advantage grows for larger data dimensions and positions the method as suited to applications needing both Granger-causal discovery and forecasting.

Load-bearing premise

The full method's low-bias and false-positive guarantees depend on the union step, the bootstrap cross-validation that picks and averages the best-fitting support, preserving the no-false-positive property proven only for the intersection step (with $s=1$), and the paper leaves that step's theory to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For sparse high-dimensional VAR models, practitioners can obtain support sets with no false positives by intersecting LASSO supports across enough moving-block bootstrap samples, at the cost of recovering only stronger signals.
  • Relying on cross-validated L1 regularization alone should be expected to overfit, giving denser graphs and more spurious Granger-causal links than the true process.
  • Because parameters on the selected support are fit by OLS, the final estimates avoid the shrinkage bias of penalized estimates, which should improve forecasting when the true support is sparse.
  • The method scales to large data through parallelism across bootstrap samples and regularization paths, with total runtime dominated by bootstrap sample generation at very large data sizes.
  • The procedure is modular: changing the base penalized estimator, bootstrap scheme, or fit criterion yields related estimators for other models with autoregressive structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's own claims, if the union step preserves the intersection step's false-positive control, the same two-stage logic could be applied to other regularized time-series estimators, such as group-lasso VARs or sparse precision-matrix estimation, to obtain support recovery without shrinkage bias.
  • As a testable extension of the proof's $s=1$ restriction, lowering $s$ should trade a controlled increase in false positives for recovery of weaker true coefficients; measuring that trade-off empirically would map the method's operating curve.
  • Because the paper's simulation evidence uses $T=100$, a natural follow-up is to check whether the sparsity-accuracy advantage persists as $T$ grows and the effective noise level drops, where cross-validated LASSO might catch up.
  • A direct causal-discovery test not carried out in the paper would compare UoI-VAR edges against a known interaction structure in a simulated neural or econometric system.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UoI-VAR, an application of the Union of Intersections (UoI) algorithmic framework to high-dimensional vector autoregressive (VAR) models. The method uses moving block bootstrap resampling, computes Lasso supports on each bootstrap sample, intersects these supports across samples to obtain candidate support sets (Algorithm 1), and then selects among these supports by bootstrap cross-validation and averages the selected OLS estimates (Algorithm 2). The authors claim that UoI-VAR achieves a better balance between sparsity and bias than L1-regularized maximum likelihood with cross-validation and MCP, with supporting simulation evidence (M=160, T=100), an S&P 500 equity data application, and algorithmic scaling experiments. Section 3 presents theoretical results for a simplified version of the method: only the intersection step (Algorithm 1) with threshold s=1, showing that intersection supports contain no false positives for thresholded Lasso solutions with lambda >= lambda_N. The authors explicitly state that the theoretical properties of the union step (Algorithm 2) are left for future work.

Significance. If the full UoI-VAR pipeline delivered what the abstract promises—simultaneously sparse, low-bias, and low-variance estimates for high-dimensional VARs—it would be a valuable contribution to causal discovery and forecasting in neuroscience, econometrics, and other fields. The algorithm is clearly described and modular, the simulation comparison uses external benchmarks (Lasso and MCP), and the real-data example illustrates a plausible use case. However, the theoretical support covers only the intersection step, and the simulation study is too narrow to substantiate the full-pipeline claims. The paper's current significance is therefore conditional: the core idea is promising and the empirical results are suggestive, but the central claims about the complete UoI-VAR estimator are not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (closing paragraph); Algorithm 2] The central claim about the full UoI-VAR estimator is not supported by the theory, because Section 3 explicitly analyzes only Algorithm 1 with s=1 and closes by stating that 'the theoretical properties of the union step of UoIVAR are left for future work.' The abstract claims that UoI-VAR 'much more effectively approximates the correct sparsity pattern' and that 'the estimates produced by UoI-VAR exhibit less bias,' but no theorem covers the union step, which selects among candidate supports by bootstrap cross-validation and averages the selected OLS estimates. Since the union step can select denser supports and can reintroduce spurious variables, the low-bias and sparsity claims for the final estimator are unproven. This gap is load-bearing and should be addressed, at minimum by stating explicit conditions under which the union step preserves the intersection step's false-positive control.
  2. [Theorem 3 and Corollary 4] Even for the simplified intersection-step estimator, the theory establishes only that the intersection of thresholded Lasso supports contains no false positives for lambda >= lambda_N; it provides no control of false negatives. Consequently, the paper does not demonstrate that UoI-VAR 'much more effectively approximates the correct sparsity pattern,' a claim that requires both false-positive and false-negative control. In fact, thresholding at lambda_N based on N* = L - D + 1 suggests that only relatively strong signals are retained, and weak true edges may be lost. The authors should either provide false-negative or support-recovery guarantees for the simplified estimator or temper the sparsity-pattern claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 4.1 (Simulation Study)] The simulation study is too limited to support the paper's central empirical claims. Only one main scenario is reported (M=160, T=100, with fixed hyperparameters B1=20, B2=30, L=7, s=1); there is no variation in process dimension, sample size, signal strength, or hyperparameter values, and no standard errors or code are provided. The conclusion that UoI-VAR improves 'particularly so for larger data dimensions' is not supported by any comparison across dimensions. Given that the theory does not cover the full algorithm, the simulations are the primary evidence for the full-pipeline claims, and their narrowness leaves the central claim under-supported.
  4. [Supplement (Proofs of Lemma 1, Lemma 2, Theorem 3)] The proofs in the Supplement are largely deferred to Basu and Michailidis [7], and the adaptation to the moving block bootstrap is not shown in enough detail to verify the bootstrap-specific claims. For example, the proof of Lemma 1 states 'now using the discretization argument as used in [7]' without giving the bootstrap-specific discretization steps, and the proof of Theorem 3 says only that 'the argument is same as in proof of Proposition 4.1 of [7].' Since the theoretical results are a major contribution and rely on the effective sample size N* = L - D + 1 for the bootstrap, this lack of detail makes it difficult to assess whether the constants and the N* dependence are correct for moving block bootstrap samples.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The word 'fincance' appears to be a typo for 'finance'; please correct it.
  2. [Section 4.1 (Simulation Study)] The phrase 'increasing exponenially' is a typo for 'increasing exponentially'; please correct it.
  3. [Theorem 3 statement] The notation 'Supp(β̃1(β̃>λ_N))' is not defined; it should be explained as the support of the thresholded Lasso estimate.
  4. [Supplement (Supplementary Figures)] The supplement refers to 'Section 3.1' and 'Section 3.2' for the secondary simulations and S&P data analysis, but these appear in Section 4 of the main text; please update the cross-references.
  5. [Section 4.2 (Data Analysis)] The RMSE formula appears to omit normalization by the number of components M; please clarify whether the reported value is an average over components.
  6. [Section 4.2 (Data Analysis)] The hyperparameter alpha is listed among the settings (B1=20, B2=10, s=1, L=12, and alpha=1) but is not defined in Algorithms 1 or 2; please specify its role.
  7. [Algorithm 2] The fit metric f is not defined in the pseudocode; the simulation section mentions R2 and BIC, but the algorithm should state explicitly what f is and how it is computed.
  8. [Section 3 (after Corollary 4)] The condition 'lambda_N >= 4Q(...)' and the theorem statement both use lambda_N; please ensure the notation is consistent and that it is clear whether lambda_N is a lower bound on lambda or a value of the regularization parameter.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UoI-VAR is benchmarked against external methods and its theory is derived from independent concentration results; the deferred union-step analysis is a support gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that UoI-VAR improves the sparsity/bias trade-off—is supported by simulation studies on synthetic data with known ground truth, compared against external baselines (LASSO and MCP), rather than being forced by the definition of the estimator. The theoretical results in Section 3 analyze the moving-block bootstrap and adapt concentration inequalities from Basu and Michailidis [7], an external reference; Theorem 3 and Corollary 4 follow from Lemmas 1 and 2 and do not presuppose the paper's conclusions. The paper does cite the authors' own UoI framework [8] and scaling work [5], but these citations supply algorithmic scaffolding and implementation details, not the statistical sparsity/low-bias claim, which is tested independently. The explicit statement that 'the theoretical properties of the union step of UoIVAR are left for future work' is a recognized limitation in proof support, but it is not circularity: no equation in the paper reduces the full estimator's performance to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity, even though the full theoretical justification is incomplete.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard high-dimensional time series assumptions plus the unproven extension of intersection-step guarantees to the full UoIVAR estimator. The algorithm's hyperparameters are chosen by hand rather than fitted from data.

free parameters (4)
  • B1 (number of bootstrap samples in intersection step) = 20 (simulation); 20 (data analysis)
    Chosen by hand; larger B1 increases sparsity.
  • B2 (number of bootstrap samples in union step) = 30 (simulation); 10 (data analysis)
    Chosen by hand; larger B2 improves predictions but increases density.
  • L (moving block bootstrap block length) = 7 (simulation); 12 (data analysis)
    Chosen by hand; affects effective sample size and bootstrap variability.
  • s (support recurrence threshold) = 1 (both)
    Chosen by hand; s=1 is strict intersection; larger s allows more frequent edges.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Data generated from a stable Gaussian VAR(D) process
    Equation (1) in Section 2.1; all theoretical results and simulations assume this model.
  • standard math Restricted eigenvalue condition (A1) and deviation condition (A2) hold for the moving block bootstrap sample
    Lemmas 1-2 adapt results from Basu and Michailidis (2015); these conditions are assumed to hold with high probability.
  • domain assumption Moving block bootstrap sample has effective stationary sample size N* = L-D+1
    Used in Theorem 3 and Corollary 4 to define the threshold lambda_N; no rigorous derivation for this equivalence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sparse and Low-bias Estimation of High Dimensional Vector Autoregressive Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G3ULTH27

@misc{pith2026190811464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sparse and Low-bias Estimation of High Dimensional Vector Autoregressive Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G3ULTH27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11464}
}
read the original abstract

Vector autoregressive (VAR) models are widely used for causal discovery and forecasting in multivariate time series analysis. In the high-dimensional setting, which is increasingly common in fields such as neuroscience and econometrics, model parameters are inferred by L1-regularized maximum likelihood (RML). A well-known feature of RML inference is that in general the technique produces a trade-off between sparsity and bias that depends on the choice of the regularization hyperparameter. In the context of multivariate time series analysis, sparse estimates are favorable for causal discovery and low-bias estimates are favorable for forecasting. However, owing to a paucity of research on hyperparameter selection methods, practitioners must rely on ad-hoc methods such as cross-validation (or manual tuning). The particular balance that such approaches achieve between the two goals -- causal discovery and forecasting -- is poorly understood. Our paper investigates this behavior and proposes a method (UoI-VAR) that achieves a better balance between sparsity and bias when the underlying causal influences are in fact sparse. We demonstrate through simulation that RML with a hyperparameter selected by cross-validation tends to overfit, producing relatively dense estimates. We further demonstrate that UoI-VAR much more effectively approximates the correct sparsity pattern with only a minor compromise in model fit, particularly so for larger data dimensions, and that the estimates produced by UoI-VAR exhibit less bias. We conclude that our method achieves improved performance especially well-suited to applications involving simultaneous causal discovery and forecasting in high-dimensional settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results from simulation study. Top, histograms of average estimate across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Network visualization of UoIV AR estimate of V AR(1) model parameters for S&P 500 data. Node and label size are proportional to degree centrality. Google is central in terms of inward edges and connected to companies spanning a diverse range of sectors, but not outward edges, suggesting complex dependence of the company on other industry sectors yet little influence on other companies. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ‘Failure-mode’ distributions evaluated in a supplementary simulation. Left, nonzero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of simulation comparing LASSO and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plots of raw series of component time series of S&P data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots of first differences of component time series of S&P data show that the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Regularized estimation in sparse high-dimensional time series models

    Sumanta Basu and George Michailidis. Regularized estimation in sparse high-dimensional time series models. The Annals of Statistics , 43(4):1535–1567, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Temporal causal modeling with graphical granger methods

    Andrew Arnold, Yan Liu, and Naoki Abe. Temporal causal modeling with graphical granger methods. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD international confernce on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 66–75. ACM, August 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Comparison of different cortical connectivity estimators for high-resolution eeg recordings

    Laura Astolfi, Febo Cincotti, Donatella Mattia, M Grazia Marciani, Luiz A Baccala, Fabrizio de Vico Fallani, Serenella Salinari, Mauro Ursino, Melissa Zavaglia, Lei Ding, et al. Comparison of different cortical connectivity estimators for high-resolution eeg recordings. Human brain mapping , 28(2):143–157, 2007. 13

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    Bolasso: model consistent lasso estimation through the boostrap

    Francis Bach. Bolasso: model consistent lasso estimation through the boostrap. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 33–40. ACM, July 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    Learning graphical models for stationary time series

    Francis Bach and Michael Jordan. Learning graphical models for stationary time series. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 52(8):2189–2199, August 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    Optimizing the Union of Intersections LASSO ($UoI_{LASSO}$) and Vector Autoregressive ($UoI_{VAR}$) Algorithms for Improved Statistical Estimation at Scale

    Mahesh Balasubramanian, Trevor Ruiz, Brandon Cook, Sharmodeep Bhattacharyya, Prab- hat, Arival Shrivastava, and Kristofer Bouchard. Optimizing the union of intersections lasso and vector autoregressive algorithms for improved statistical estimation at scale. arXiv:1808.06992, 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning

    Danielle S Bassett, Nicholas F Wymbs, Mason A Porter, Peter J Mucha, Jean M Carlson, and Scott T Grafton. Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108(18):7641–7646, 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Union of intersections (uoi) for interpretable data driven discovery and prediction

    Kristofer Bouchard, Alejandro Bujan, Farbod Roosta-Khorasani, Shashanka Ubaru, Mr Prab- hat, Antoine Snijders, Jian-Hua Mao, Edward Chang, Michael W Mahoney, and Sharmodeep Bhattacharya. Union of intersections (uoi) for interpretable data driven discovery and prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1078–1086, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers

    Stephen Boyd, Neal Parikh, Eric Chu, Borja Peleato, Jonathan Eckstein, et al. Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Foundations and Trends R© in Machine learning , 3(1):1–122, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Coordinate descent algorithms for nonconvex penalized regression, with applications to biological feature selection

    Patrick Breheny and Jian Huang. Coordinate descent algorithms for nonconvex penalized regression, with applications to biological feature selection. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 5(1):232–253, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Bagging predictors

    Leo Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24:123–140, 1996

    1996

  4. [12]

    Multiple neural spike train data analysis: state-of-the-art and future challenges

    Emery N Brown, Robert E Kass, and Partha P Mitra. Multiple neural spike train data analysis: state-of-the-art and future challenges. Nature neuroscience, 7(5):456–461, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    Block length selection in the bootstrap for time series

    Peter B¨ uhlmann and Hans R K¨ unsch. Block length selection in the bootstrap for time series. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 31(3):295–310, 1999

    1999

  6. [14]

    Springer, 1 edition, 2011

    Peter B¨ uhlmann and Sara van de Geer.Statistics for High-Dimensional Data . Springer, 1 edition, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    The origin of extracellular fields and currents – eeg, ecog, lfp and spikes

    Gy¨ orgy Buzs´ aki, Costas Anastassiou, and Christof Koch. The origin of extracellular fields and currents – eeg, ecog, lfp and spikes. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13:407–420, June 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Thirteen challenges in modelling plant diseases

    Nik J Cunniffe, Britt Koskella, C Jessica E Metcalf, Stephen Parnell, Tim R Gottwald, and Christopher A Gilligan. Thirteen challenges in modelling plant diseases. Epidemics, 10:6–10, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Causality and graphical models in time series analysis

    Rainer Dahlhaus and Michael Eichler. Causality and graphical models in time series analysis. Oxford Statistical Science Series , pages 115–137, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    The joint graphical lasso for inverse covariance estimation across multiple classes

    Patrick Danaher, Pei Wang, and Daniela M Witten. The joint graphical lasso for inverse covariance estimation across multiple classes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76(2):373–397, 2014. 14

    2014

  11. [19]

    Non-gaussian membrane potential dynamics imply sparse, synchronous activity in auditory cortex.Journal of Neuroscience, 26(47):12206– 12218, 2006

    Michael R DeWeese and Anthony M Zador. Non-gaussian membrane potential dynamics imply sparse, synchronous activity in auditory cortex.Journal of Neuroscience, 26(47):12206– 12218, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    An application of vector time series techniques to macroeconomic forecasting

    James S Fackler and Sandra C Krieger. An application of vector time series techniques to macroeconomic forecasting. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 4(1):71–80, 1986

    1986

  13. [21]

    Sparse high-dimensional models in economics

    Jianqing Fan, Jinchi Lv, and Lei Qi. Sparse high-dimensional models in economics. Annu. Rev. Econ., 3(1):291–317, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    The generalized dynamic factor model: one-sided estimation and forecasting

    Mario Forni, Marc Hallin, Marco Lippi, and Lucrezia Reichlin. The generalized dynamic factor model: one-sided estimation and forecasting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(471):830–840, 2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Pathwise coordinate optimization

    Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, Holger H¨ ofling, and Robert Tibshirani. Pathwise coordinate optimization. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 1(2):302–332, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent

    Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software , 33(1):1–22, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods

    Clive Granger. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3):424–438, 1969

    1969

  18. [26]

    Joint estimation of multiple graphical models

    Jian Guo, Elizaveta Levina, George Michailidis, and Ji Zhu. Joint estimation of multiple graphical models. Biometrika, 98(1):1–15, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Inferring high-dimensional poisson autoregressive models

    Eric C Hall, Garvesh Raskutti, and Rebecca Willett. Inferring high-dimensional poisson autoregressive models. In Statistical Signal Processing Workshop (SSP), 2016 IEEE , pages 1–5. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    A direct estimation of high dimensional stationary vector autoregressions

    Fang Han, Huanran Lu, and Han Liu. A direct estimation of high dimensional stationary vector autoregressions. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 16:3115–3150, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Machine learning for the geosciences: Challenges and opportunities

    Anuj Karpatne, Imme Ebert-Uphoff, Sai Ravela, Hassan Ali Babaie, and Vipin Kumar. Machine learning for the geosciences: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Identifying natural images from human brain activity

    Kendrick N Kay, Thomas Naselaris, Ryan J Prenger, and Jack L Gallant. Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature, 452(7185):352–355, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Bootstrap methods for time series, volume 30 of Time Series Analysis: Methods and Applications , chapter 1, pages 3–26

    Jens-Peter Kreiss and Soumendra Nath Lahiri. Bootstrap methods for time series, volume 30 of Time Series Analysis: Methods and Applications , chapter 1, pages 3–26. Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  24. [32]

    The jackknife and the bootstrap for general stationary observations

    Hans R Kunsch et al. The jackknife and the bootstrap for general stationary observations. The Annals of Statistics , 17(3):1217–1241, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    Moving blocks jackknife and bootstrap capture weak dependence

    Regina Y Liu and Kesar Singh. Moving blocks jackknife and bootstrap capture weak dependence. Exploring the limits of bootstrap , 225:248, 1992

    1992

  26. [34]

    Springer, 1 edition, 2005

    Helmut L¨ utkepohl.New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis . Springer, 1 edition, 2005

    2005

  27. [35]

    Sociology in the era of big data: The ascent of forensic social science

    Daniel A McFarland, Kevin Lewis, and Amir Goldberg. Sociology in the era of big data: The ascent of forensic social science. The American Sociologist, 47(1):12–35, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Stability selection

    Nicolai Meinshausen and Peter B¨ uhlmann. Stability selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 72(4):417–473, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Investigating large-scale brain 15 dynamics using field potential recordings: analysis and interpretation

    Bijan Pesaran, Martin Vinck, Gaute Einevoll, Anton Sirota, Pascal Fries, Markus Siegel, Wilson Truccolo, Charles Schroeder, and Ramesh Srinivasan. Investigating large-scale brain 15 dynamics using field potential recordings: analysis and interpretation. Nature neuroscience, 21(...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Chichilnisky, and Eero Simoncelli

    Jonathan Pillow, Jonathon Shlens, Liam Paninski, Alexander Sher, Alan Litke, E. Chichilnisky, and Eero Simoncelli. Spatio-temporal correlations and visual signaling in a complete neuronal population. Nature, 454(7207):995–999, August 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Joint estimation of multiple graphical models from high dimensional time series

    Huitong Qiu, Fang Han, Han Liu, and Brian Caffo. Joint estimation of multiple graphical models from high dimensional time series. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 78(2):487–504, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Macroeconomics and reality

    Christopher A Sims. Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 1–48, 1980

    1980

  33. [41]

    Large vector auto regressions

    Song Song and Peter J Bickel. Large vector auto regressions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.3915, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Forecasting using principal components from a large number of predictors

    James H Stock and Mark W Watson. Forecasting using principal components from a large number of predictors. Journal of the American statistical association , 97(460):1167–1179, 2002

    2002

  35. [43]

    Anthropogenic global warming hypothesis: testing its robustness by granger causality analysis

    Umberto Triacca, Alessandro Attanasio, and Antonello Pasini. Anthropogenic global warming hypothesis: testing its robustness by granger causality analysis. Environmetrics, 24(4):260–268, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble, and extrinsic covariate effects

    Wilson Truccolo, Uri Eden, Matthew Fellows, John Donoghue, and Emery Brown. A point process framework for relating neural spiking activity to spiking history, neural ensemble, and extrinsic covariate effects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93(2):1074–1089, February 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    Analysis of financial time series , volume 543

    Ruey S Tsay. Analysis of financial time series , volume 543. John Wiley & Sons, 2005

    2005

  38. [46]

    Uoi-nmfcluster: A robust nonnegative matrix factorization algorithm for improved parts-based decomposition and reconstruction of noisy data

    Shashanka Ubaru, Kesheng Wu, and Kristofer E Bouchard. Uoi-nmfcluster: A robust nonnegative matrix factorization algorithm for improved parts-based decomposition and reconstruction of noisy data. In Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2017 16th IEEE International Confer...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Shrinkage tuning parameter selection with a diverging number of parameters

    Hansheng Wang, Bo Li, and Chenlei Leng. Shrinkage tuning parameter selection with a diverging number of parameters. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 71(3):671–683, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Consistent tuning parameter selection in high dimensional sparse linear regression

    Tao Wang and Lixing Zhu. Consistent tuning parameter selection in high dimensional sparse linear regression. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 102(7):1141–1151, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty

    Cun-Hui Zhang. Nearly unbiased variable selection under minimax concave penalty. The Annals of Statistics , 38(2):894–942, 2010. Supplement Proofs of Lemma 1, Lemma 2, Theorem 3 and Corollary 4 Proof of Lemma 1 To prove that S satisfies RE, we first show that the random matrix V...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.