Literature DB >> 11764258

Shrinkage estimators for covariance matrices.

M J Daniels1, R E Kass.   

Abstract

Estimation of covariance matrices in small samples has been studied by many authors. Standard estimators, like the unstructured maximum likelihood estimator (ML) or restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator, can be very unstable with the smallest estimated eigenvalues being too small and the largest too big. A standard approach to more stably estimating the matrix in small samples is to compute the ML or REML estimator under some simple structure that involves estimation of fewer parameters, such as compound symmetry or independence. However, these estimators will not be consistent unless the hypothesized structure is correct. If interest focuses on estimation of regression coefficients with correlated (or longitudinal) data, a sandwich estimator of the covariance matrix may be used to provide standard errors for the estimated coefficients that are robust in the sense that they remain consistent under misspecification of the covariance structure. With large matrices, however, the inefficiency of the sandwich estimator becomes worrisome. We consider here two general shrinkage approaches to estimating the covariance matrix and regression coefficients. The first involves shrinking the eigenvalues of the unstructured ML or REML estimator. The second involves shrinking an unstructured estimator toward a structured estimator. For both cases, the data determine the amount of shrinkage. These estimators are consistent and give consistent and asymptotically efficient estimates for regression coefficients. Simulations show the improved operating characteristics of the shrinkage estimators of the covariance matrix and the regression coefficients in finite samples. The final estimator chosen includes a combination of both shrinkage approaches, i.e., shrinking the eigenvalues and then shrinking toward structure. We illustrate our approach on a sleep EEG study that requires estimation of a 24 x 24 covariance matrix and for which inferences on mean parameters critically depend on the covariance estimator chosen. We recommend making inference using a particular shrinkage estimator that provides a reasonable compromise between structured and unstructured estimators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11764258      PMCID: PMC2748251          DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.01173.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  2 in total

1.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

Authors:  R DerSimonian; N Laird
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1986-09

2.  The effects of age and gender on sleep EEG power spectral density in the middle years of life (ages 20-60 years old).

Authors:  J Carrier; S Land; D J Buysse; D J Kupfer; T H Monk
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.016

  2 in total
  28 in total

1.  Dynamic conditionally linear mixed models for longitudinal data.

Authors:  M Pourahmadi; M J Daniels
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Modelling the random effects covariance matrix in longitudinal data.

Authors:  Michael J Daniels; Yan D Zhao
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Better estimates of genetic covariance matrices by "bending" using penalized maximum likelihood.

Authors:  Karin Meyer; Mark Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-05-03       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Bayesian semiparametric copula estimation with application to psychiatric genetics.

Authors:  Ori Rosen; Wesley K Thompson
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 2.207

5.  Flexible Bayesian Dynamic Modeling of Correlation and Covariance Matrices.

Authors:  Shiwei Lan; Andrew Holbrook; Gabriel A Elias; Norbert J Fortin; Hernando Ombao; Babak Shahbaba
Journal:  Bayesian Anal       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.728

6.  Stable Estimation of a Covariance Matrix Guided by Nuclear Norm Penalties.

Authors:  Eric C Chi; Kenneth Lange
Journal:  Comput Stat Data Anal       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 1.681

7.  Simple Penalties on Maximum-Likelihood Estimates of Genetic Parameters to Reduce Sampling Variation.

Authors:  Karin Meyer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Use of the l1 norm for selection of sparse parameter sets that accurately predict drug response phenotype from viral genetic sequences.

Authors:  Rabinowitz Matthew; Milena Banjevic; A S Chan; Lance Myers; Roland Wolkowicz; Jessica Haberer; Joshua Singer
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2005

9.  Power and Effective Study Size in Heritability Studies.

Authors:  Jesse D Raffa; Elizabeth A Thompson
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2016-02-08

10.  Dynamic semiparametric Bayesian models for genetic mapping of complex trait with irregular longitudinal data.

Authors:  Kiranmoy Das; Jiahan Li; Guifang Fu; Zhong Wang; Runze Li; Rongling Wu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.