arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.00884

Efficient Convex Optimization Methods for State-Space Heartbeat Dynamics Models with Gamma Generalized Linear Models

Abstract

Objective: This work proposes a dynamic state-space statistical model of heartbeat dynamics whose optimal state estimate can be solved efficiently with convex optimization and used to assess autonomic and cardiovascular health. Methods: This state-space model combines a Gauss-Markov process prior with gamma emissions using a log-link function. Parameters are estimated using a static version of the model, and alternating direction method of multipliers is used to efficiently find the optimal maximum a priori latent state estimate. Model selection is performed by finding the tradeoff between model size and model fit using the partial autocorrelation function. Results: We demonstrate in synthetically generated heartbeats that this model is able to closely recover the underlying latent weights. Then, we show using a tilt table dataset that this statistical model is able to better capture sharp transients in heart rate patterns than traditional local averaging methods. In addition, combining heart beat timings with information from other organs such as the respiratory phase, we show that our statistical modeling framework enables the extraction of information-theoretic measures to quantify inter-organ coupling such as respiratory sinus arrythmia. Conclusion: This statistical framework for modeling heartbeat dynamics provides an efficient framework that can provide physiologically meaningful insights. Significance: This work broadens potential tools that can be used to assess heartbeat dynamics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sabrina Liu, Andrew S. Perley, Todd P. Coleman. 2026-10-01. Efficient Convex Optimization Methods for State-Space Heartbeat Dynamics Models with Gamma Generalized Linear Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.00884

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Assessing the impact of climate change and rising temperature on life insurance portfolios

Climate change may materially affect long-term life insurance liabilities by altering both the level and seasonal pattern of mortality. This article develops a multi-population mortality framework that combines a Hermite spline model with a distributed lag non-linear model to capture age-, region-, and temperature-specific mortality effects. We apply the framework to mortality and temperature data from 15 Spanish NUTS-2 regions and project future mortality under three shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios. We then assess the implications for a hypothetical whole life insurance portfolio through expected death-benefit payments and portfolio profit and loss. The results reveal an important seasonal offset: warmer conditions reduce expected payoffs during winter periods but increase them during summer periods, with these effects becoming more pronounced under more severe climate scenarios and for policies issued in later years. Over longer horizons, adverse summer mortality effects become increasingly important. The portfolio analysis further shows that climate-related mortality risk can materially increase the dispersion and downside risk of portfolio outcomes, particularly under SSP5-8.5. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating temperature-related mortality effects into long-term life insurance liability projections and risk assessment.

stat.AP↗

On relations between the Cochran--Mantel--Haenszel test and Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting

This note revisits the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test in light of the increasing use of causal inference methods in clinical trials. It shows that the CMH test statistic can be interpreted as a standardized version of the augmented inverse probability weighted (AIPW) estimate of the causal average treatment effect. Consequently, it is not restricted to an interpretation as a test of the common-odds ratio in a stratified logistic regression model. The note then discusses conditional and unconditional variances for this estimator as well as variance estimation and its implications for testing. The results clarify the relationship between the classical conditional CMH test and Wald-type AIPW tests, and show that, under equal treatment allocation, the CMH test is asymptotically conservative for the weak null hypothesis of zero average treatment effect. %This note revisits the Cochran--Mantel--Haenszel (CMH) test in light of the increasing use of causal inference methods in clinical trials. For stratified randomized trials with binary endpoints and a common treatment allocation fraction across strata, we show that the numerator of the CMH statistic is proportional to an augmented inverse probability weighted estimator of the population-average causal risk difference. This provides an interpretation of the CMH test that does not depend on the common-odds-ratio model often used to motivate it. We then compare conditional and unconditional variance concepts for this estimator and discuss their implications for testing. The results clarify the relationship between the classical conditional CMH test and Wald-type AIPW tests, and show that, under equal treatment allocation, the CMH test is asymptotically conservative for the weak null hypothesis of zero average treatment effect.

stat.AP↗

The Difference Between "Replicable" and "Not Replicable" Is Not Itself Scientifically Replicable

Replication studies estimate the replicability rate of scientific results by aggregating binary verdicts of experiments as ``replicated'' and ``not replicated''. These estimates assume rarely attainable exact replications. Experiments often do not share a common data-generating process, leading to non-exact replications. We formalize two statistical interpretations of non-exactness. In a shared latent rate model (benchmark), experiments are exchangeable conditional on a common random replicability rate. In a conditionally independent rates model (operational), each experiment has its own random replicability rate, drawn independently from a population. Under the benchmark model, even small variability in assumed replicability rates induces a variance floor of the estimated mean replicability rate that is irreducible by more replications. Under the operational model, the degree of non-exactness is not identifiable from binary verdict data, which contain no information about between-experiment heterogeneity. Researchers cannot tell which precision regime they are in, and high- and low-replicability sequences cannot be distinguished in principle. Binary verdicts systematically understate uncertainty in reporting scientific results, making high- and low-replicability sequences appear discriminable, when they are not. Common sources of heterogeneity amplify these problems as shown in a reanalysis of Many Labs~4 data. The practice of aggregating replicability rates across heterogeneous literatures produces averages that conflate incommensurable experimental regimes and lack a stable scientific interpretation. Hence, replicability rates as currently used do not provide a reliable demarcation criterion for scientific results. The replication crisis, if there is one, cannot be established by methods used to declare it.

stat.AP↗