Generalized Reduced-Rank Regression with Homogeneity Pursuit

Ganggang Xu; Ruipeng Dong; Yongtao Guan

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Generalized Reduced-Rank Regression with Homogeneity Pursuit

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that when columns of a multi-response regression coefficient matrix form tight groups, the estimation error bound shrinks from the sparse reduced-rank rate toward the much faster univariate-response rate, with the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful unification of column homogeneity, low rank, and sparsity in GLMs, with simulations that back it up; the main rate theorem's stated conditions are unsound for the very GLMs it targets, so the theory needs a boundedness or local-RSC fix before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15016 v1 pith:A6BOP64Z submitted 2025-01-25 stat.ME

Ruipeng Dong , Ganggang Xu , Yongtao Guan This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62J1262J0762H3062H25

keywords generalizedlinearmodelreduced-rankregressionhomogeneitypursuitcolumnclusteringhigh-dimensionalLaplacianpenaltyvariableselectionmultinomiallogistic

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 tries to establish a unified theoretical picture of three structural assumptions used in high-dimensional multi-response regression: the coefficient matrix's columns cluster into a few similar groups (homogeneity), the matrix has low rank, and only a few covariates are relevant (sparsity). It proves an estimation-error bound for a regularized maximum likelihood estimator that enforces all three structures simultaneously, and the bound quantifies when column homogeneity helps. The central message is that homogeneity acts like an extra dimension-reduction device: when true columns are tightly grouped, the error rate approaches the much faster univariate-response regression rate, and when they are not, the estimator gracefully degrades to the sparse reduced-rank regression rate.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a Laplacian fusion penalty $P_{km}(B)=\min_{\mathcal G,\mu}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{j\in\mathcal G_k}\|\beta_j-\mu_k\|_2^2$ that encourages the columns of the coefficient matrix to cluster, combined with the factorization $B=UV^\top$ with $V^\top V=I_r$ that enforces low rank and converts row sparsity on $B$ into row sparsity on $U$. Proposition 2 supplies the key equivalence $\operatorname{trace}\{B L B^\top\}=2\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{j\in\mathcal G_k}\|\beta_j-\mu_k\|_2^2$, which turns the penalty into a K-means update on the rows of $V$. The algorithm iterates proximal gradient steps with hard thresholding on $U$, orthogonal Procrustes updates on $V$, and K-means updates on the group memberships, and Theorem 2 shows each blockwise update reduces the surrogate objective.

What would settle it

Take a Bernoulli logistic regression with a two-column coefficient matrix in the feasible set, and compute the smallest eigenvalue of the Hessian of the negative log-likelihood along a sequence of matrices whose norms grow to infinity while staying in the feasible set. If that eigenvalue tends to zero, Condition 1 cannot hold with a fixed $\kappa>0$, and the claimed $O_P(\xi_{m,K}(\gamma)/\sqrt n)$ rate for that setting lacks a valid premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: under restricted strong convexity of the link function, a bounded sparse-operator norm of the design, and sub-Gaussian noise, the constrained estimator defined by problem (3.1) satisfies $\|\hat A - A^*\|_F + \|\hat B - B^*\|_F = O_P(\rho \xi_{m,K}(\gamma)/(\kappa \sqrt n))$, where $\xi_{m,K}(\gamma)$ combines three terms: $\sqrt{r\gamma(s+m)}$, $\sqrt{s\log p + m\log K}$, and $\sqrt{[s+\min(K^2,m)]\min(r,K)\log m}$. The rate explicitly depends on the within-group similarity $\gamma$ and the number of groups $K$, so the paper can state precisely when homogeneity improves accuracy: a small $\gamma$ (relative to the noise floor $\zeta_n^2$) and a small $K$ shrink the error, while a large $\gamma$ or indistinct groups makes the bound collapse to the known sparse reduced-rank regression rate.

Load-bearing premise

The whole rate proof rests on the assumption that the log-likelihood stays strongly convex with a fixed positive curvature constant across the entire (unbounded) feasible set of coefficient matrices, but for logistic and Poisson models the curvature shrinks toward zero as the natural parameters grow without bound, so this uniformity can fail for exactly the models the paper targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

When all columns are identical ($\gamma=0$, $K=1$), the bound becomes $O_P(\sqrt{s\log(p\vee m)}/\sqrt n)$, matching the high-dimensional univariate-response regression rate.
When the group structure is absent or weak, the error bound reduces to the sparse reduced-rank regression rate, so the method does not lose accuracy compared with SRRR.
Both the within-group similarity $\gamma$ and the group number $K$ enter the rate explicitly, giving a quantitative way to decide when column homogeneity will help.
The blockwise algorithm decreases the objective at every update and converges to a critical point, so the estimator is computationally reproducible.
Tuning $K$, $\lambda$, rank, and sparsity by cross-validation lets practitioners compare homogeneity, low-rank, and sparsity effects on a common benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

A practical rule implied by the theorem: pursue homogeneity only when the estimated within-group column spread is below the noise floor $\zeta_n^2$; otherwise the SRRR rate already applies, and the extra penalty buys little.
Because the fusion penalty is equivalent to K-means on the rows of $V$, the same framework could be extended to two-way homogeneity, clustering rows and columns simultaneously, and to other losses such as quantile regression.
The theorem suggests that a data-driven estimator of $\gamma$ and $K$ from the fitted $V$ could replace cross-validation on a two-dimensional grid, making the method more scalable in applications with many responses.
The BCI application indicates the clustering output has ecological interpretability, which would be strengthened by quantifying uncertainty in the estimated groups, a topic the paper leaves open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a real contribution, not a repackaging. Fusing column-homogeneity pursuit into sparse reduced-rank regression for GLMs, with a rate that explicitly depends on within-group variance γ and group count K, is new relative to She et al. (row homogeneity) and Price & Sherwood (column clustering without rank/sparsity). The simulation study is careful—linear and multinomial, low/high-dim, varying within-group scatter—and the qualitative agreement with the rate intuition (smaller γ, smaller K help) is convincing. The BCI tree-species analysis is a nice applied illustration, even if the ecological story is a bit speculative.

The soft spots are real. The main one is Condition 1. Restricted strong convexity is asserted uniformly on the entire set ~Brsγ, which is unbounded: A is unconstrained and exactly homogeneous directions in B are scale-invariant. For Bernoulli, multinomial-logit, and Poisson links, the Hessian of the cumulant function decays to zero at extreme natural parameters, so no fixed κ > 0 can satisfy the quadratic lower bound. Theorem 1's stated conditions are therefore vacuous for the GLMs the paper emphasizes; only the linear model escapes because its Hessian is constant. That is a load-bearing problem, not a technicality. The fix is standard—impose a bounded parameter set or a local restricted strong convexity near the truth plus an initialization guarantee—but the rate will then need to track the extra radius or the initialization quality.

A secondary gap: the consistency bound is for the constrained global minimizer in (3.1), while Algorithm 1 is only proved to converge to a critical point. No argument shows the CV-tuned output is near the global solution. This is common in nonconvex problems, but it should be stated explicitly and ideally given an initialization condition. Also, the proofs are deferred to a supplementary that is not present in the arXiv v1, so an editor should insist on seeing them.

The citation coverage looks fair; the self-citations are background and the positioning against She et al. is accurate.

Bottom line: the method is worth refereeing. The empirical evidence and the unification are solid; the theory needs a serious revision of Condition 1 and an honest discussion of the global-minimizer gap. A competent referee can fix this rather than kill it.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified regularized maximum likelihood framework for multi-response generalized linear models under three structural assumptions: column homogeneity, low rank, and row sparsity. The coefficient matrix B is factorized as UV^T, homogeneity is encouraged through a normalized Laplacian fusion penalty on the columns of B, sparsity is imposed by a hard row constraint on U, and the rank is fixed through V^T V = I_r. The main theoretical result, Theorem 1, gives a consistency rate for the constrained estimator (3.1) under Conditions 1-3, with the rate depending explicitly on the within-group similarity parameter γ, the number of groups K, the rank r, the sparsity level s, and the dimensions m and p. An iterative block-coordinate majorization-minimization algorithm is proposed and shown to be monotone in Theorem 2. Numerical experiments compare the proposed Laplacian SRRR method with SRRR and gLasso in linear and multinomial logistic settings, and the method is applied to tree species data from Barro Colorado Island.

Significance. If the main theorem can be made sound, this is a valuable contribution: it offers a single convergence rate that interpolates between sparse reduced-rank regression (large K, large γ) and a univariate-like regression rate (K = 1, γ = 0), and it extends existing reduced-rank methodology beyond the linear model to a broad GLM family. The rate's explicit dependence on γ and K is a genuinely falsifiable comparative prediction, and the numerical results in Tables 2-5 are consistent with the qualitative claim that stronger homogeneity improves estimation. The paper does not fit constants in the proof, and the algorithmic convergence guarantee in Theorem 2 is useful. The main weakness is that Condition 1 is stated too strongly for the very GLMs that the paper targets, so the central theoretical claim currently rests on an unsatisfiable assumption.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.1, Condition 1] The restricted strong convexity condition is imposed uniformly over the entire solution set ~Brsγ, which is unbounded. A is completely unconstrained, and B may be scaled by an arbitrary c > 0 along any direction that is exactly homogeneous (then Pkm(B) = 0, rank(B) = 1, and ∥B∥_{2,0} ≤ s remain true for every c), so pairs in ~Brsγ can be arbitrarily far apart. For the Bernoulli log-partition b(θ) = log(1 + e^θ), b''(θ) = e^θ/(1 + e^θ)^2 → 0 as θ → ∞; for the Poisson log-partition b(θ) = e^θ, b''(θ) → 0 as θ → −∞; and for the multinomial logistic log-partition b(θ) = log(1 + ∑_j e^{θ_j}), the directional second derivative along θ = (t, 0, ..., 0) tends to 0 as t → ∞. Since Z contains an intercept and X takes values on R^p, these unbounded directions belong to ~Brsγ. Hence no fixed κ > 0 can satisfy the displayed inequality, and Theorem 1 is vacuous as stated for the Bernoulli and multinomial models emphasized in Section 2 and for the Poisson row of Table 1. The proof should either work with a bounded parameter set (e.g., ∥~B∥_F ≤ R, with the final rate then depending on R) or impose a local restricted strong convexity in a neighborhood of ~B* together with an initialization or restricted-step guarantee that keeps the iterates in that neighborhood.
[Section 3.1, Condition 3 and Table 1] Condition 3 assumes that E = Y − E(Y) has sub-Gaussian tails, with P(|a^T e_i| > δ) ≤ 2 exp(−δ²/(τ∥a∥²)). This holds for bounded responses such as Bernoulli and multinomial indicators, but not for the Poisson responses listed in Table 1: a Poisson variable has P(|Y − λ| > t) decaying like exp(−ct log t), not exp(−ct²). Since the paper's GLM framework explicitly includes Poisson in Table 1, the theorem's scope is narrower than claimed; it covers the linear model and bounded-response GLMs but not Poisson. Please either remove the Poisson claim from the stated scope or replace Condition 3 with a tail or moment condition that Poisson satisfies, and adjust the theorem accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1 and Section 4.2] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'speficially' in Section 2.1, 'procruste' in the text after equation (2.9), 'seqe' in Section 4.2, and 'Whose the j-th row' in Section 2.2.2. The paper should be carefully proofread.
[Tables 2-5] In the (b) panels of Tables 2-5, the rows for gLasso, SRRR, and Laplacian are not labeled, so the reader must reconstruct the methods from the order in panel (a). Please repeat the method names in every panel.
[Section 3.1, Condition 1] The notation b(~B) in Condition 1 is not defined. In Section 2, b(θ_i) is the per-observation log-partition, whereas Condition 1 evaluates b at the whole parameter matrix and includes a factor nκ on the right-hand side. Please clarify whether b(~B) denotes the summed log-partition ∑_{i=1}^n b(θ_i) and define κ accordingly.
[Section 3, discussion after Theorem 1] The statement that for large γ and K the rate reduces to O(√(s log p) + √(r(s+m) log m)), 'the same as sparse reduced-rank regression excluding a logarithmic factor', is too strong. In Theorem 1(b), when K is close to m the bound still contains √(m log m) from √(s log p + m log K) and the third entropy term, so the comparison with the SRRR rate should be qualified.
[Section 4.2] For the Laplacian SRRR method, the rank and sparsity hyperparameters are taken from the cross-validation results of SRRR rather than being re-tuned jointly with K and λ. Please justify that this does not bias the comparison, since the proposed method is otherwise tuned on a larger grid.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 1 is an asymptotic bound under external assumptions; self-citations are background and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain for Theorem 1 is self-contained in the relevant sense: the constrained estimator in (3.1) is defined without using the theorem's conclusion, and the bound depends on structural parameters (s, r, K, gamma) that enter as constraints on the true parameter or as inputs, not as fitted constants. The gamma term arises because Pkm(B*) <= gamma bounds the approximation error between B* and its K-column grouped version; that is a standard bias bound, not a renaming of the target. Conditions 1-3 are external assumptions (restricted strong convexity, bounded restricted operator norm, sub-Gaussian noise) and are not derived from the rate; no parameter is fitted and then called a prediction. Self-citations (Hessellund et al. 2022b for the BCI model, Chen et al. 2022 and Wen et al. 2023 for background techniques) are not load-bearing: the consistency proof and the main rate do not invoke them as the source of the result. The principal weakness is that Condition 1's uniform restricted strong convexity over the unbounded set ~Brsgamma is likely unsatisfiable for Bernoulli, multinomial-logit, and Poisson links without a bounded-parameter or local-RSC modification; however, that is a correctness and assumption-validity problem, not a circularity problem. No step satisfies the defined circularity patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical rate involves no fitted constants; the statistical result depends on structural constants kappa, rho, tau and on hyperparameters (s,r,K,lambda) that are tuned by cross-validation in practice. The main assumption burden is Condition 1, whose stated formulation over an unbounded set is questionable for GLMs, and the gap between global-minimizer rate and local convergence.

free parameters (5)

s (sparsity level) = tuned by cross-validation from {10,...,20}
Number of nonzero rows kept in B; treated as known in Theorem 1 but selected by CV in practice (Section 4.2).
r (rank) = tuned by cross-validation from {2,...,10}
Rank of B; input to the factorization B = U V^T; affects the rate in Theorem 1.
K (number of groups) = tuned by cross-validation from {2,...,10}
Number of homogeneous groups in P_km(B); the rate depends on K through log K and min(K^2,m) terms.
lambda (fusion penalty) = tuned by CV grid exp(seq(-4.605,0,length=50))
Penalty weight in (2.5); Lagrangian dual to the gamma constraint in Theorem 1.
eta (step size) = not specified; order O(n*kappa/(||X||^2+lambda))
Update step for U in Algorithm 1; required for monotone descent in Theorem 2, but the practical value is left unspecified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Condition 1: restricted strong convexity of the link function b over the whole set ~Brsgamma with uniform kappa > 0
Stated in Section 3.1. For multinomial logistic and other GLMs, curvature vanishes when natural parameters diverge, so this cannot hold on an unbounded set without an added Frobenius-norm bound.
domain assumption Condition 2: restricted maximum eigenvalue bound n^{-1/2} ||~X||_{2s,op} <= rho
Standard restricted eigenvalue and smoothness condition; guarantees the design does not concentrate on sparse directions.
domain assumption Condition 3: sub-Gaussian noise with tail bound P(|a^T e_i| > delta) <= 2 exp(-delta^2 / (tau ||a||^2))
Assumes the response noise has exponential tails; covers normal, Bernoulli, and multinomial responses.
domain assumption The true coefficient matrix B* admits a grouping into K* groups, and the estimator uses the same K (or K is tuned); Theorem 1 assumes the group structure is compatible with P_km(B) <= gamma
Section 2.1.2 defines the true groups; the optimization (3.1) requires B to be in ~Brsgamma, which is only meaningful if the true matrix lies in that set.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Reduced-Rank Regression with Homogeneity Pursuit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6BOP64Z

@misc{pith2026250115016,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Reduced-Rank Regression with Homogeneity Pursuit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6BOP64Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15016}
}

read the original abstract

Homogeneity, low rank, and sparsity are three widely adopted assumptions in multi-response regression models to address the curse of dimensionality and improve estimation accuracy. However, there is limited literature that examines these assumptions within a unified framework. In this paper, we investigate the homogeneity, low rank, and sparsity assumptions under the generalized linear model with high-dimensional responses and covariates, encompassing a wide range of practical applications. Our work establishes a comprehensive benchmark for comparing the effects of these three assumptions and introduces a regularized maximum likelihood estimation method to fit the corresponding models. Under mild conditions,we prove the statistical consistency of our estimator. Theoretical results provide insights into the role of homogeneity and offer a quantitative analysis of scenarios where homogeneity improves estimation accuracy. The proposed method's effectiveness is demonstrated through numerical simulations and an empirical analysis of tree species data from Barro Colorado Island.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15016 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Heatmaps of coefficients. resulting covariate matrix has a rank of 13, encompassing all 13 covariates, indicating that the coefficient matrix is neither sparse nor low-rank. However, Laplacian SRRR clusters 50 species (excluding the baseline species) into 18 distinct groups. Excluding groups that contain only a single species, the clustering results for the remaining groups are summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Florentina Bunea, Yiyuan She, and Marten H. Wegkamp. Optimal selection of reduced rank estimators of high-dimensional matrices . The Annals of Statistics, 39 0 (2): 0 1282--1309, 2011. doi:10.1214/11-AOS876. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/11-AOS876

doi:10.1214/11-aos876 2011
[2]

Florentina Bunea, Yiyuan She, and Marten H. Wegkamp. Joint variable and rank selection for parsimonious estimation of high-dimensional matrices . The Annals of Statistics, 40 0 (5): 0 2359 -- 2388, 2012

work page 2012
[3]

Reduced rank regression via adaptive nuclear norm penalization

Kun Chen, Hongbo Dong, and Kung-Sik Chan. Reduced rank regression via adaptive nuclear norm penalization. Biometrika, 100 0 (4): 0 901--920, 2013

2013
[4]

Fast stagewise sparse factor regression

Kun Chen, Ruipeng Dong, Wanwan Xu, and Zemin Zheng. Fast stagewise sparse factor regression. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (1): 0 12411--12455, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Sparse reduced-rank regression for simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection

Lisha Chen and Jianhua Z Huang. Sparse reduced-rank regression for simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107 0 (500): 0 1533--1545, 2012

2012
[6]

Recent developments in dynamic pricing research: multiple products, competition, and limited demand information

Ming Chen and Zhi-Long Chen. Recent developments in dynamic pricing research: multiple products, competition, and limited demand information. Production and Operations Management, 24 0 (5): 0 704--731, 2015

work page 2015
[7]

Modeling multimodal continuous heterogeneity in conjoint analysis—a sparse learning approach

Yupeng Chen, Raghuram Iyengar, and Garud Iyengar. Modeling multimodal continuous heterogeneity in conjoint analysis—a sparse learning approach. Marketing Science, 36 0 (1): 0 140--156, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Choice-based conjoint analysis

Felix Eggers, Henrik Sattler, Thorsten Teichert, and Franziska V \"o lckner. Choice-based conjoint analysis. In Handbook of market research, pages 781--819. Springer, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 40 references

[9]

A convex optimization approach to modeling consumer heterogeneity in conjoint estimation

Theodoros Evgeniou, Massimiliano Pontil, and Olivier Toubia. A convex optimization approach to modeling consumer heterogeneity in conjoint estimation. Marketing Science, 26 0 (6): 0 805--818, 2007

2007
[10]

A selective overview of variable selection in high dimensional feature space

Jianqing Fan and Jinchi Lv. A selective overview of variable selection in high dimensional feature space. Statistica Sinica, 20 0 (1): 0 101, 2010

2010
[11]

Asymptotic properties for combined l 1 and concave regularization

Yingying Fan and Jinchi Lv. Asymptotic properties for combined l 1 and concave regularization. Biometrika, 101 0 (1): 0 57--70, 2014

2014
[12]

Group network hawkes process

Guanhua Fang, Ganggang Xu, Haochen Xu, Xuening Zhu, and Yongtao Guan. Group network hawkes process. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (547): 0 2328--2344, 2024

2024
[13]

No spurious local minima in nonconvex low rank problems: A unified geometric analysis

Rong Ge, Chi Jin, and Yi Zheng. No spurious local minima in nonconvex low rank problems: A unified geometric analysis. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1233--1242. PMLR, 2017

2017
[14]

Bayesian reduced rank regression in econometrics

John Geweke. Bayesian reduced rank regression in econometrics. Journal of econometrics, 75 0 (1): 0 121--146, 1996

1996
[15]

Procrustes problems, volume 30

John C Gower and Garmt B Dijksterhuis. Procrustes problems, volume 30. OUP Oxford, 2004

2004
[16]

A practical guide to geostatistical mapping, volume 52

Tomislav Hengl. A practical guide to geostatistical mapping, volume 52. Hengl Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009

2009
[17]

Second-order semi-parametric inference for multivariate log gaussian cox processes

Kristian Bj rn Hessellund, Ganggang Xu, Yongtao Guan, and Rasmus Waagepetersen. Second-order semi-parametric inference for multivariate log gaussian cox processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 71 0 (1): 0 244--268, 2022 a

2022
[18]

Semiparametric multinomial logistic regression for multivariate point pattern data

Kristian Bj rn Hessellund, Ganggang Xu, Yongtao Guan, and Rasmus Waagepetersen. Semiparametric multinomial logistic regression for multivariate point pattern data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117 0 (539): 0 1500--1515, 2022 b

2022
[19]

On iterative hard thresholding methods for high-dimensional m-estimation

Prateek Jain, Ambuj Tewari, and Purushottam Kar. On iterative hard thresholding methods for high-dimensional m-estimation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

2014
[20]

Dynamic assortment personalization in high dimensions

Nathan Kallus and Madeleine Udell. Dynamic assortment personalization in high dimensions. Operations Research, 68 0 (4): 0 1020--1037, 2020

2020
[21]

Menu-choice modeling

Wagner A Kamakura and Kyuseop Kwak. Menu-choice modeling. Available at SSRN 2162019, 2012

2012
[22]

Dynamic pricing with an unknown demand model: Asymptotically optimal semi-myopic policies

N Bora Keskin and Assaf Zeevi. Dynamic pricing with an unknown demand model: Asymptotically optimal semi-myopic policies. Operations research, 62 0 (5): 0 1142--1167, 2014

2014
[23]

Plants of the world online

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. Plants of the world online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:23279-1/general-information, 2017. Accessed: 2024-12-18

2017
[24]

Two-way homogeneity pursuit for quantile network vector autoregression

Wenyang Liu, Ganggang Xu, Jianqing Fan, and Xuening Zhu. Two-way homogeneity pursuit for quantile network vector autoregression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18732, 2024

2024 arXiv
[25]

Vegetative growth of the common bean in response to phosphorus nutrition

Jonathan Lynch, Andr \'e L \"a uchli, and Emanuel Epstein. Vegetative growth of the common bean in response to phosphorus nutrition. Crop science, 31 0 (2): 0 380--387, 1991

1991
[26]

Modelling the choice of residential location

Daniel McFadden. Modelling the choice of residential location. Technical report, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, 1977

1977
[27]

A cluster elastic net for multivariate regression

Bradley S Price and Ben Sherwood. A cluster elastic net for multivariate regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2018

2018
[28]

Detecting clusters in multivariate response regression

Bradley S Price, Corban Allenbrand, and Ben Sherwood. Detecting clusters in multivariate response regression. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 14 0 (3): 0 e1551, 2022

2022
[29]

Multivariate Reduced-Rank Regression: Theory, Methods and Applications, volume 225

Gregory C Reinsel, Raja P Velu, and Kun Chen. Multivariate Reduced-Rank Regression: Theory, Methods and Applications, volume 225. Springer Nature, 2022

2022
[30]

Selective factor extraction in high dimensions

Yiyuan She. Selective factor extraction in high dimensions. Biometrika, 104 0 (1): 0 97--110, 2017

2017
[31]

Supervised multivariate learning with simultaneous feature auto-grouping and dimension reduction

Yiyuan She, Jiahui Shen, and Chao Zhang. Supervised multivariate learning with simultaneous feature auto-grouping and dimension reduction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84 0 (3): 0 912--932, 2022

2022
[32]

On the use of minimum penalties in statistical learning

Ben Sherwood and Bradley S Price. On the use of minimum penalties in statistical learning. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 33 0 (1): 0 138--151, 2024

2024
[33]

A blockwise descent algorithm for group-penalized multiresponse and multinomial regression

Noah Simon, Jerome Friedman, and Trevor Hastie. A blockwise descent algorithm for group-penalized multiresponse and multinomial regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.6529, 2013

2013 arXiv
[34]

Guaranteed matrix completion via non-convex factorization

Ruoyu Sun and Zhi-Quan Luo. Guaranteed matrix completion via non-convex factorization. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62 0 (11): 0 6535--6579, 2016

2016
[35]

Sofar: Large-scale association network learning

Yoshimasa Uematsu, Yingying Fan, Kun Chen, Jinchi Lv, and Wei Lin. Sofar: Large-scale association network learning. IEEE transactions on information theory, 65 0 (8): 0 4924--4939, 2019

2019
[36]

Simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection for multinomial logistic regression

Canhong Wen, Zhenduo Li, Ruipeng Dong, Yijin Ni, and Wenliang Pan. Simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection for multinomial logistic regression. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 2023

2023
[37]

Rate minimaxity of the lasso and dantzig selector for the lq loss in lr balls

Fei Ye and Cun-Hui Zhang. Rate minimaxity of the lasso and dantzig selector for the lq loss in lr balls. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11: 0 3519--3540, 2010

2010
[38]

Scalable interpretable multi-response regression via seed

Zemin Zheng, M Taha Bahadori, Yan Liu, and Jinchi Lv. Scalable interpretable multi-response regression via seed. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20 0 (107): 0 1--34, 2019

2019
[39]

Learning social infectivity in sparse low-rank networks using multi-dimensional hawkes processes

Ke Zhou, Hongyuan Zha, and Le Song. Learning social infectivity in sparse low-rank networks using multi-dimensional hawkes processes. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 641--649. PMLR, 2013

2013
[40]

Simultaneous estimation and group identification for network vector autoregressive model with heterogeneous nodes

Xuening Zhu, Ganggang Xu, and Jianqing Fan. Simultaneous estimation and group identification for network vector autoregressive model with heterogeneous nodes. Journal of Econometrics, page 105564, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Florentina Bunea, Yiyuan She, and Marten H. Wegkamp. Optimal selection of reduced rank estimators of high-dimensional matrices . The Annals of Statistics, 39 0 (2): 0 1282--1309, 2011. doi:10.1214/11-AOS876. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/11-AOS876

doi:10.1214/11-aos876 2011

[2] [2]

Florentina Bunea, Yiyuan She, and Marten H. Wegkamp. Joint variable and rank selection for parsimonious estimation of high-dimensional matrices . The Annals of Statistics, 40 0 (5): 0 2359 -- 2388, 2012

work page 2012

[3] [3]

Reduced rank regression via adaptive nuclear norm penalization

Kun Chen, Hongbo Dong, and Kung-Sik Chan. Reduced rank regression via adaptive nuclear norm penalization. Biometrika, 100 0 (4): 0 901--920, 2013

2013

[4] [4]

Fast stagewise sparse factor regression

Kun Chen, Ruipeng Dong, Wanwan Xu, and Zemin Zheng. Fast stagewise sparse factor regression. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (1): 0 12411--12455, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Sparse reduced-rank regression for simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection

Lisha Chen and Jianhua Z Huang. Sparse reduced-rank regression for simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107 0 (500): 0 1533--1545, 2012

2012

[6] [6]

Recent developments in dynamic pricing research: multiple products, competition, and limited demand information

Ming Chen and Zhi-Long Chen. Recent developments in dynamic pricing research: multiple products, competition, and limited demand information. Production and Operations Management, 24 0 (5): 0 704--731, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Modeling multimodal continuous heterogeneity in conjoint analysis—a sparse learning approach

Yupeng Chen, Raghuram Iyengar, and Garud Iyengar. Modeling multimodal continuous heterogeneity in conjoint analysis—a sparse learning approach. Marketing Science, 36 0 (1): 0 140--156, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Choice-based conjoint analysis

Felix Eggers, Henrik Sattler, Thorsten Teichert, and Franziska V \"o lckner. Choice-based conjoint analysis. In Handbook of market research, pages 781--819. Springer, 2021

work page 2021