arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1910.09699

Soft Tensor Regression

Georgia Papadogeorgou·Zhengwu Zhang·David B. Dunson
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Statistical methods relating tensor predictors to scalar outcomes in a regression model generally vectorize the tensor predictor and estimate the coefficients of its entries employing some form of regularization, use summaries of the tensor covariate, or use a low dimensional approximation of the coefficient tensor. However, low rank approximations of the coefficient tensor can suffer if the true rank is not small. We propose a tensor regression framework which assumes a soft version of the parallel factors (PARAFAC) approximation. In contrast to classic PARAFAC, where each entry of the coefficient tensor is the sum of products of row-specific contributions across the tensor modes, the soft tensor regression (Softer) framework allows the row-specific contributions to vary around an overall mean. We follow a Bayesian approach to inference, and show that softening the PARAFAC increases model flexibility, leads to improved estimation of coefficient tensors, more accurate identification of important predictor entries, and more precise predictions, even for a low approximation rank. From a theoretical perspective, we show that employing Softer leads to a weakly consistent posterior distribution of the coefficient tensor, irrespective of the true or approximation tensor rank, a result that is not true when employing the classic PARAFAC for tensor regression. In the context of our motivating application, we adapt Softer to symmetric and semi-symmetric tensor predictors and analyze the relationship between brain network characteristics and human traits.soft

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Georgia Papadogeorgou, Zhengwu Zhang, David B. Dunson. 2019-10-21. Soft Tensor Regression. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09699

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗