Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Time-varying Parameter Tensor Vector Autoregression

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A plug-in conditional DIC reliably selects the configuration and rank of a time-varying tensor VAR.

desk verdict A credible, workmanlike extension of tensor VARs to time-varying coefficients; the DIC selection story holds within its stated model family and the paper deserves peer review with requests for robustness checks and code. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07975 v1 pith:I2EGT33S submitted 2025-05-12 stat.ME

Yiyong Luo , Jim E. Griffin This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62M1062F15
keywords time-varyingparametervectorautoregressiontensordecompositionCPDevianceinformationcriterionkneepointdetectionGrangercausalityfMRIBayesianinference
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

Time-varying parameter vector autoregressions become hard to fit in high dimensions because every coefficient may change at every time point. This paper compresses the time-varying coefficient matrix into a third-order tensor with a CP decomposition in which exactly one of three loadings (response, predictor, or temporal) evolves as a random walk, giving three model configurations. It then asks how to choose the configuration and the decomposition rank from MCMC output, and claims that one conditional DIC variant, $DIC_{c,1}$, which plugs in the posterior mean of the coefficient tensor, is substantially more reliable than conditional or marginal DICs based on latent margins: it has lower Monte Carlo error and recovers the true configuration in simulations. Applied to fMRI story-reading data, the chosen models cut parameter counts by over 90% and suggest that brain connectivity dynamics are time-varying.

What carries the argument

The central object is the third-order coefficient tensor $A_t \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N\times P}$ in the VAR $\boldsymbol{y}_t = A_{t,(1)}\boldsymbol{x}_t + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_t$, subject to a CP decomposition in which one of the three factor families is time-varying, for example $A_t = \sum_{r=1}^R \boldsymbol{\beta}^{(r)}_{1,t} \circ \boldsymbol{\beta}^{(r)}_2 \circ \boldsymbol{\beta}^{(r)}_3$. The vectorized time-varying loading follows a random walk, giving a state-space model sampled by a Gibbs sampler with forward-filtering backward-sampling. Model selection is carried by $DIC_{c,1}$, which plugs in the posterior mean of $A_t$ itself, and by the 'kneedle' knee-point detector applied to the sequence of $DIC_{c,1}$ values across ranks. The machinery works because the composite tensor is identified even though its margins are not, so the plug-in deviance is computed from a well-mixing, identifiable quantity.

What would settle it

Simulate 100 data sets from a TVP-TVAR in which two loadings (say response and predictor) both follow random walks, then run the paper's four-configuration comparison: if $DIC_{c,1}$ selects one of the restricted configurations with high confidence rather than flagging misspecification, the criterion's configuration choice is not reliable for multi-loading dynamics. A cheaper check is to fit a model allowing all three loadings to vary on the fMRI data and see whether the time-varying connectivity pattern or the parameter reduction survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a specific conditional DIC, $DIC_{c,1}$, solves model selection for TVP-TVARs by scoring the identified composite tensor rather than the weakly identified loading factors. Because CP loadings are identifiable only up to sign switching and permutation, their MCMC chains mix poorly, and DIC variants that plug in loading means inherit large Monte Carlo error; $DIC_{c,1}$ avoids this by plugging in the posterior mean of the coefficient tensor $A_t$ itself. Simulations over 100 data sets per configuration show that $DIC_{c,1}$ selects the true configuration in nearly all cases and, combined with knee point detection on the DIC-versus-rank curve, recovers the true rank instead of defaulting to the maximum. The paper therefore recommends $DIC_{c,1}$ with the 'kneedle' algorithm for configuration and rank choice. On 32 fMRI data sets from story reading, the selected model is most often TVP-TVAR(4,1), meaning a time-varying response loading, with parameter reductions above 90%, and Granger causality counts rise and fall with the narrative.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the true data-generating process has a fixed-rank CP tensor form with exactly one time-varying loading; if real dynamics involve several loadings changing together, all four compared configurations are misspecified and the selected one is only the best of a restricted family.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can select both the configuration and the rank of a TVP-TVAR from a modest number of MCMC runs, using $DIC_{c,1}$ plus knee point detection rather than fitting the full model space exhaustively.
  • The number of estimated parameters scales as $(2N+P)R$ instead of $N^2P$, so high-dimensional VARs become feasible; the fMRI application reports over 90% parameter reduction.
  • The finding that the response loading is time-varying for most subjects implies that Granger-causal connectivity patterns are time-dependent and that static VAR estimates would miss narrative-linked structure.
  • Knee point detection should be used rather than minimum DIC when rank is the target, because DIC underpenalizes overfitted tensor ranks.
  • Conditional DICs based on identified composite quantities can outperform marginal DICs in state-space models whose latent components are only weakly identified.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same logic suggests a general principle: in any Bayesian latent-variable model where a low-rank or compressed parameter is identified while its factors are not, model selection criteria should be evaluated on the identified composite parameter rather than on the factors themselves.
  • A natural stress test is to generate data from a TVP-TVAR with two or three loadings varying jointly; if $DIC_{c,1}$ then confidently prefers one of the three restricted configurations, the fMRI conclusion that connectivity dynamics are time-varying may be an artifact of the restricted model family.
  • The knee-point procedure's performance may depend on the chosen maximum rank $R^*$ and on the number of ranks evaluated; a systematic sensitivity check would clarify when the improvement is robust.
  • The Granger causality interpretation could be validated out-of-sample by checking whether the narrative-linked rise and fall in connectivity counts reproduces across subjects or across chapters.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a time-varying parameter tensor vector autoregression (TVP-TVAR) in which the VAR coefficient tensor has a CP decomposition and exactly one of the three loadings evolves as a random walk; the other two loadings remain time-invariant. Posterior inference is carried out with a Gibbs sampler using forward-filtering backward-sampling and closed-form full conditionals. The paper compares conditional and marginal DIC variants, recommends the conditional variant DIC_c,1, and uses the kneedle algorithm to select the CP rank. A Monte Carlo study with 3-variable, 200-observation data sets generated from TVAR(3) and TVP-TVAR(3,j), j=1,2,3, reports configuration recovery around 90% or better and improved rank selection with knee-point detection. The method is applied to 32 fMRI runs from the Wehbe et al. (2014) story-reading data, selecting TVP-TVAR(4,1) for most runs and reporting time-varying Granger causality networks. The paper claims over 90% reduction in parameters relative to standard VARs and argues that the empirical results support time-varying brain connectivity.

Significance. If the selection and rank procedures are reliable, the paper offers a practical way to fit high-dimensional TVP-VARs with strong parameter reduction and interpretable dynamic connectivity. The paper is clear about the state-space representation and provides explicit full conditionals, making the sampler implementable. The Monte Carlo study uses an external synthetic-data benchmark with known true configuration and rank, and the confusion matrix in Table 1 is encouraging. The knee-point idea addresses a real overfitting tendency of DIC for rank selection. The main significance is conditional on the restricted one-time-varying-loading CP family; the evidence does not yet establish that the selected configuration is meaningful under misspecification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 (Table 1) and Section 2.2] The configuration-selection evidence is confined to data generated from exactly the four model classes considered, with rank fixed at 3. Section 2.2 explicitly states that multiple time-varying loadings are possible but are not modeled. The fMRI conclusion that brain connectivity dynamics are time-varying rests on comparing TVAR with three one-time-varying-loading CP models; a data-generating process with two or three time-varying loadings, or an unrestricted TVP-VAR, could be best approximated by TVP-TVAR(4,1) without that model being true. To support the abstract's claim that DIC_c,1 'accurately identifies true model configurations' outside the correctly specified family, the authors should add Monte Carlo scenarios with multiple time-varying loadings and with a full TVP-VAR, and report configuration selection and DIC gaps for those scenarios.
  2. [Section 5.2 (Figure 2)] The claim that DIC_c,1 has lower Monte Carlo error than DIC_c,2 and DIC_m is demonstrated only for data generated from TVP-TVAR(3,1) with rank 3, and the histograms in panels (b) and (c) exclude several data sets by truncation. The text says the truncated panels 'account for 93 data sets,' but the behavior of the remaining 7 data sets is not described. Please provide Monte Carlo error comparisons for all four true configurations and a range of ranks, or explicitly qualify the reliability claim to the single scenario examined.
  3. [Section 4 and Figure 5] Knee-point detection is used as the primary rank-selection device, but no distributional or consistency justification is given. The method assumes the DIC curve is monotone decreasing and selects the point of maximum curvature; the paper does not report how often this assumption fails or how sensitive the selected rank is to the normalization step. In Figure 5a, even with knee-point detection, fewer than 60 of 100 data sets recover the true rank 3, with most errors at ranks 2 and 4. The authors should report rank-selection accuracy numerically for all configurations and compare the knee-point rule with alternatives such as marginal-likelihood-based selection or a formal penalized criterion.
  4. [Section 6.3 (Figures 7-8)] The fMRI narrative-alignment conclusion is based on one subject-run data set, with Granger causality thresholds delta=0.01 and p*=99.9% set without sensitivity analysis. The temporal pattern in Figure 7 and the network interpretation in Figure 8 could change materially under small threshold perturbations, so a robustness check across thresholds and across the 32 data sets is needed before the narrative-progression claim can be accepted as a general empirical finding.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (2.3)] The third margin in the CP decomposition is written as beta_3 twice; it should be beta_1 outer beta_2 outer beta_3.
  2. [Table 1] The last two column headers are both labeled TVP-TVAR(3,2); the final column should read TVP-TVAR(3,3).
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says the middle and right panels restrict display to maxima of 350 and 500 and account for 93 data sets, but the number of excluded data sets and their Monte Carlo errors are not stated; please clarify whether the excluded values are extreme outliers or truncation artifacts.
  4. [Table 3] The entry for TVP-TVAR(4,3) is '/', but the configuration is fitted in the selection step; please explain why no parameter count is reported, and state how the averaged counts are computed across data sets of different length.
  5. [Section 6.3 and Appendix D] The text refers to 'Nievell' and 'Precental gyrus'; these should be 'Neville' and 'Precentral gyrus'. Also, the threshold p*=99.9% should be motivated or cited.
  6. [General] No code or data availability statement is included; releasing the sampler and simulation scripts would strengthen reproducibility, which is particularly valuable given the high computational cost of the MCMC implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DIC_c,1 is validated on external synthetic benchmarks, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central methodological claim is that the conditional DIC variant DIC_c,1, combined with knee-point detection, reliably selects configuration and rank for TVP-TVAR models. This claim is established by an external Monte Carlo benchmark in Section 5: datasets are simulated from TVAR(3) and TVP-TVAR(3,j) with known rank 3, and the DIC-based selections are scored against those known true configurations and ranks. The true model is an input to the data generator, not to the DIC formula, so the reported success is an empirical finding rather than an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The preference for DIC_c,1 over DIC_c,2 and DIC_m is supported by Monte Carlo errors computed from 10 parallel MCMC runs and by trace plots showing that coefficient chains mix better than margin chains; the paper reproduces these phenomena in its own simulations, so the argument does not rest solely on the cited prior work. The self-citations to Luo and Griffin (2025) concern loading interpretation and the scaling indeterminacy of CP decompositions; these are contextual and are independently supported by the paper's own trace plots and simulation results, so they are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The restriction to a single time-varying loading is an acknowledged modeling assumption, stated in Section 2.2, and while it limits the interpretation of the fMRI application by making model comparison within a restricted family, that is a misspecification/robustness concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper is used both as input and as output, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. The score is 1 rather than 0 only because there are minor self-citations; none of them carries the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are mostly prior scales and decision thresholds chosen by hand; the CP rank is the key model-selection output. The axioms are standard Bayesian modeling and tensor decomposition assumptions, plus the untested structural restriction that exactly one loading varies over time.

free parameters (8)
  • CP rank R = R=3 in simulation truth; R=4 to 6 in fMRI selection
    Selected by DIC_c,1 with knee point detection; the rank directly determines the parameter count and the model interpretation (Sections 4 and 5).
  • Prior variance scale sigma^2 = 0.5 (simulation), 0.1 (fMRI)
    Hand-chosen hyperparameter; sets the prior dispersion of the loadings and, per Section 2.2, removes scaling indeterminacy of the CP decomposition.
  • Granger effect threshold delta = 0.01
    Set following Fana et al. (2022) to decide when a coefficient is non-zero; directly controls how many Granger causal links are detected (Section 6.3).
  • Granger posterior threshold p* = 0.999
    Chosen to limit false positive connections; no sensitivity analysis is reported (Section 6.3).
  • Random walk innovation variance Q_j = 0.01 (simulation DGP)
    Hand-fixed truth in the Monte Carlo study; the simulation conclusions depend on this choice (Section 5.1).
  • Lag order P = 3 (simulation), 4 (fMRI)
    Fixed by design; follows Zhang et al. (2021) for the fMRI application.
  • IG hyperparameters a_k = b_k = 0.01
    Chosen as a non-informative prior for the random walk innovation variances (Section 6.1).
  • Rank upper bound R* = 9 (simulation), 10 (fMRI)
    Predefined maximum for the DIC-based knee search; affects the normalization in the knee point detection (Sections 4 and 6.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The true coefficient process is representable as a CP decomposition with fixed rank and exactly one time-varying loading.
    Section 2.2 introduces the three configurations as the model class; no comparison with models having two or three time-varying loadings is provided.
  • standard math With known sigma^2, the loadings are identifiable up to sign switching and permutation, avoiding scaling indeterminacy.
    Remark 1 and the following paragraph argue that the Gaussian prior with fixed variance breaks exact scaling invariance.
  • domain assumption The MCMC sampler (FFBS plus collapsed Gibbs steps) converges to the target posterior despite sign and permutation multimodality.
    Section 3; trace plots for one simulated data set are shown, but no convergence diagnostics are reported for the fMRI application.
  • standard math DIC computed with plug-in posterior means is a valid model selection criterion for state-space models.
    Section 4 follows Spiegelhalter et al. (2002) and Celeux et al. (2006); the paper argues DIC_c,1 is the reliable variant.
  • domain assumption The kneedle maximum-curvature point corresponds to the true rank when DIC under-penalizes overfitting.
    Section 4 and Figure 1; supported only by simulation, not by an analytical argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-varying Parameter Tensor Vector Autoregression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2EGT33S

@misc{pith2026250507975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-varying Parameter Tensor Vector Autoregression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2EGT33S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07975}
}
read the original abstract

Time-varying parameter vector autoregression provides a flexible framework to capture structural changes within time series. However, when applied to high-dimensional data, this model encounters challenges of over-parametrization and computational burden. We address these challenges by building on recently proposed Tensor VAR models to represent the time-varying coefficient matrix as a third-order tensor with CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) decomposition, yielding three model configurations where different sets of components are specified as time-varying, each offering distinct interpretations. To select the model configuration and the decomposition rank, we evaluate multiple variants of Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) corresponding to the conditional and marginal DICs. Our simulation demonstrates that a specific conditional DIC variant provides more reliable results and accurately identifies true model configurations. We improve the accuracy of rank selection by applying knee point detection to the DICs, rather than defaulting to the minimum DIC value. Upon analyzing functional magnetic resonance imaging data from story reading tasks, our selected model configurations suggest time-varying dynamics while reducing the number of parameters by over 90% relative to standard VARs. Granger causality analysis reveals directional brain connectivity patterns that align with narrative progression, with various regions functioning as signal emitters or receivers at different time points.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of unnormalized (left) and normalized (right) conditional DICs (presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of Monte Carlo errors of conditional and marginal DICs, computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trace plots of coefficients and margins sampled using TVP-TVAR(3,1) with a rank of 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Boxplots of sample mean of coefficients and margins across 10 MCMC runs for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms of selected ranks based on the data sets generated from TVP-TVAR(3,1). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Counts of models selected across 32 data sets. Standard VARs Tensor VARs VAR 2916 TVAR(4) 251 TVP-TVAR(4,1) 39718 TVP-VAR 941139 TVP-TVAR(4,2) 47224 TVP-TVAR(4,3) / [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Granger causality time series AG.L AG.R F.L F.R IT.L IT.R IFG1.RIFG1.L IFG2.L IFG2.R IFG3.L IFG3.R MT.L MT.R IO.L IO.R PCG.L PCG.R PC.L PC.R SM.L SM.R ST.L ST.R STP.L STP.R SG.R (a) 𝑡 = 1 AG.L AG.R F.L F.R IT.L IT.R IFG1.RIFG1.L IFG2.L IFG2.R IFG3.L IFG3.R MT.L MT.R IO…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Granger causality networks at different time points. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Histograms of selected ranks based on data sets generated from TVAR(3). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histograms of selected ranks based on data sets generated from TVP-TVAR(3,2). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of selected ranks based on data sets generated from TVP-TVAR(3,3). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ariyo, O., Lesaffre, E., Verbeke, G., and Quintero, A. (2022). Model selection for B ayesian linear mixed models with longitudinal data: sensitivity to the choice of priors. Communications in Statistics-simulation and Computation , 51(4):1591--1615

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Ariyo, O., Quintero, A., Mu \ n oz, J., Verbeke, G., and Lesaffre, E. (2020). Bayesian model selection in linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Journal of Applied Statistics , 47(5):890--913

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    and Wang, P

    Bai, J. and Wang, P. (2015). Identification and B ayesian estimation of dynamic factor models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 33(2):221--240

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    A., Koop, G., and Korobilis, D

    Belmonte, M. A., Koop, G., and Korobilis, D. (2014). Hierarchical shrinkage in time-varying parameter models. Journal of Forecasting , 33(1):80--94

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    D., Mortensen, S., Neeley, E

    Bigler, E. D., Mortensen, S., Neeley, E. S., Ozonoff, S., Krasny, L., Johnson, M., Lu, J., Provencal, S. L., McMahon, W., and Lainhart, J. E. (2007). Superior temporal gyrus, language function, and autism. Developmental Neuropsychology , 31(2):217--238

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Billio, M., Casarin, R., Iacopini, M., and Kaufmann, S. (2023). Bayesian dynamic tensor regression. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 41(2):429--439

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Brune, B., Scherrer, W., and Bura, E. (2022). A state-space approach to time-varying reduced-rank regression. Econometric Reviews , 41(8):895--917

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Carriero, A., Kapetanios, G., and Marcellino, M. (2011). Forecasting large datasets with B ayesian reduced rank multivariate models. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 26(5):735--761

    work page 2011

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Carter, C. K. and Kohn, R. (1994). On G ibbs sampling for state space models. Biometrika , 81(3):541--553

    1994

  2. [10]

    P., and Titterington, D

    Celeux, G., Forbes, F., Robert, C. P., and Titterington, D. M. (2006). Deviance information criteria for missing data models . Bayesian Analysis , 1(4):651 -- 673

    2006

  3. [11]

    Chan, J. C. (2023). Large hybrid time-varying parameter VAR s. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 41(3):890--905

    2023

  4. [12]

    Chan, J. C. and Eisenstat, E. (2018). Bayesian model comparison for time-varying parameter VAR s with stochastic volatility. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 33(4):509--532

    2018

  5. [13]

    C., Eisenstat, E., and Strachan, R

    Chan, J. C., Eisenstat, E., and Strachan, R. W. (2020). Reducing the state space dimension in a large TVP-VAR . Journal of Econometrics , 218(1):105--118

    2020

  6. [14]

    Chan, J. C. and Grant, A. L. (2016a). Fast computation of the deviance information criterion for latent variable models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 100:847--859

    2016

  7. [15]

    Chan, J. C. and Grant, A. L. (2016b). On the observed-data deviance information criterion for volatility modeling. Journal of Financial Econometrics , 14(4):772--802

    2016

  8. [16]

    Chan, J. C. and Qi, Y. (2024). Large B ayesian T ensor VAR s with stochastic volatility. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16132

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chen, X., Zhang, C., Chen, X., Saunier, N., and Sun, L. (2023). Discovering dynamic patterns from spatiotemporal data with time-varying low-rank autoregression. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 36(2):504--517

    2023

  10. [18]

    Clark, T. E. and Mertens, E. (2023). Stochastic volatility in B ayesian vector autoregressions. Oxford University Press

    2023

  11. [19]

    and Sargent, T

    Cogley, T. and Sargent, T. J. (2001). Evolving post-world war II US inflation dynamics. NBER Macroeconomics Annual , 16:331--373

    2001

  12. [20]

    and Sargent, T

    Cogley, T. and Sargent, T. J. (2005). Drifts and volatilities: monetary policies and outcomes in the post WWII US . Review of Economic dynamics , 8(2):262--302

    2005

  13. [21]

    Cubadda, G., Grassi, S., and Guardabascio, B. (2025). The time-varying multivariate autoregressive index model. International Journal of Forecasting , 41(1):175--190

    2025

  14. [22]

    C., and Strachan, R

    Eisenstat, E., Chan, J. C., and Strachan, R. W. (2016). Stochastic model specification search for time-varying parameter VAR s. Econometric Reviews , 35(8-10):1638--1665

    2016

  15. [23]

    Fana, J., Sitekb, K., Chandrasekaranb, B., and Sarkara, A. (2022). Bayesian tensor factorized mixed vector autoregressive models for inferring G ranger causality patterns from high-dimensional multi-subject panel neuroimaging data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10757 , 3

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M., Hauzenberger, N., Huber, F., and Pfarrhofer, M

    Fischer, M. M., Hauzenberger, N., Huber, F., and Pfarrhofer, M. (2023). General B ayesian time-varying parameter vector autoregressions for modeling government bond yields. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 38(1):69--87

    2023

  17. [25]

    Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S. (1994). Data augmentation and dynamic linear models. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 15(2):183--202

    1994

  18. [26]

    and Wagner, H

    Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter, S. and Wagner, H. (2010). Stochastic model specification search for G aussian and partial non- G aussian state space models. Journal of Econometrics , 154(1):85--100

    2010

  19. [27]

    Gaschler-Markefski, B., Baumgart, F., Tempelmann, C., Schindler, F., Stiller, D., Heinze, H.-J., and Scheich, H. (1997). Statistical methods in functional magnetic resonance imaging with respect to nonstationary time-series: auditory cortex activity. Magnetic Resonance in Medi...

    1997

  20. [28]

    Geraci, M. V. and Gnabo, J.-Y. (2018). Measuring interconnectedness between financial institutions with B ayesian time-varying vector autoregressions. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 53(3):1371--1390

    2018

  21. [29]

    Guhaniyogi, R., Qamar, S., and Dunson, D. B. (2017). Bayesian tensor regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(79):1--31

    2017

  22. [30]

    and Spencer, D

    Guhaniyogi, R. and Spencer, D. (2021). Bayesian tensor response regression with an application to brain activation studies. Bayesian Analysis , 16(4):1221--1249

    2021

  23. [31]

    D., Aravkin, A., Rao, R., and Brunton, B

    Harris, K. D., Aravkin, A., Rao, R., and Brunton, B. W. (2021). Time-varying autoregression with low-rank tensors. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems , 20(4):2335--2358

    2021

  24. [32]

    Havlicek, M., Jan, J., Brazdil, M., and Calhoun, V. D. (2010). Dynamic G ranger causality based on K alman filter for evaluation of functional network connectivity in f MRI data. Neuroimage , 53(1):65--77

    2010

  25. [33]

    Huber, F., Koop, G., and Onorante, L. (2021). Inducing sparsity and shrinkage in time-varying parameter models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 39(3):669--683

    2021

  26. [34]

    Jeffreys, H. (1935). Some tests of significance, treated by the theory of probability. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , volume 31, pages 203--222. Cambridge University Press

    1935

  27. [35]

    Kiers, H. A. (2000). Towards a standardized notation and terminology in multiway analysis. Journal of Chemometrics: A Journal of the Chemometrics Society , 14(3):105--122

    2000

  28. [36]

    Kolda, T. G. and Bader, B. W. (2009). Tensor decompositions and applications. SIAM review , 51(3):455--500

    2009

  29. [37]

    Korobilis, D. (2013). Assessing the transmission of monetary policy using time-varying parameter dynamic factor models. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics , 75(2):157--179

    2013

  30. [38]

    and Zhang, X

    Li, L. and Zhang, X. (2017). Parsimonious tensor response regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 112(519):1131--1146

    2017

  31. [39]

    Li, X., Xu, D., Zhou, H., and Li, L. (2018). Tucker tensor regression and neuroimaging analysis. Statistics in Biosciences , 10(3):520--545

    2018

  32. [40]

    Li, Y., Yu, J., and Zeng, T. (2020). Deviance information criterion for latent variable models and misspecified models. Journal of econometrics , 216(2):450--493

    2020

  33. [41]

    Liakakis, G., Nickel, J., and Seitz, R. (2011). Diversity of the inferior frontal gyrus—a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Behavioural Brain Research , 225(1):341--347

    2011

  34. [42]

    Litterman, R. B. et al. (1979). Techniques of forecasting using vector autoregressions. Working Paper 115, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

    1979

  35. [43]

    and Griffin, J

    Luo, Y. and Griffin, J. E. (2025). Bayesian inference of vector autoregressions with tensor decompositions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 0(0):1--29

    2025

  36. [44]

    K., Basu, S., and Ghosh, S

    Maity, A. K., Basu, S., and Ghosh, S. (2021). Bayesian criterion-based variable selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , 70(4):835--857

    2021

  37. [45]

    C., Furr, D., and Rabe-Hesketh, S

    Merkle, E. C., Furr, D., and Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2019). Bayesian comparison of latent variable models: Conditional versus marginal likelihoods. Psychometrika , 84(3):802--829

    2019

  38. [46]

    Millar, R. B. (2009). Comparison of hierarchical B ayesian models for overdispersed count data using DIC and B ayes' factors. Biometrics , 65(3):962--969

    2009

  39. [47]

    Mitchell, T. J. and Beauchamp, J. J. (1988). Bayesian variable selection in linear regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 83(404):1023--1032

    1988

  40. [48]

    Nakajima, J. (2011). Time-Varying Parameter VAR Model with Stochastic Volatility: An Overview of Methodology and Empirical Applications . IMES Discussion Paper Series 11-E-09, Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan

    2011

  41. [49]

    Primiceri, G. E. (2005). Time varying structural vector autoregressions and monetary policy. The Review of Economic Studies , 72(3):821--852

    2005

  42. [50]

    Pr \"u ser, J. (2021). The horseshoe prior for time-varying parameter VAR s and monetary policy. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 129:104188

    2021

  43. [51]

    Reinsel, G. (1983). Some results on multivariate autoregressive index models. Biometrika , 70(1):145--156

    1983

  44. [52]

    Robert, C. P. (2014). On the J effreys- L indley paradox. Philosophy of Science , 81(2):216--232

    2014

  45. [53]

    Rowling, J. (2012). Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone . Pottermore Limited

    2012

  46. [54]

    kneedle

    Satopaa, V., Albrecht, J., Irwin, D., and Raghavan, B. (2011). Finding a" kneedle" in a haystack: Detecting knee points in system behavior. In 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops , pages 166--171. IEEE

    2011

  47. [55]

    Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The annals of statistics , pages 461--464

    1978

  48. [56]

    Seghier, M. L. (2013). The angular gyrus: multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. The Neuroscientist , 19(1):43--61

    2013

  49. [57]

    K., Barrett, A

    Seth, A. K., Barrett, A. B., and Barnett, L. (2015). Granger causality analysis in neuroscience and neuroimaging. Journal of Neuroscience , 35(8):3293--3297

    2015

  50. [58]

    Spencer, D., Guhaniyogi, R., and Prado, R. (2022). Parsimonious B ayesian sparse tensor regression using the T ucker decomposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04733

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J., Best, N

    Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., and Van Der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , 64(4):583--639

    2002

  52. [60]

    Wang, D., Zheng, Y., Lian, H., and Li, G. (2022). High-dimensional vector autoregressive time series modeling via tensor decomposition. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 117(539):1338--1356

    2022

  53. [61]

    Wehbe, L., Murphy, B., Talukdar, P., Fyshe, A., Ramdas, A., and Mitchell, T. (2014). Simultaneously uncovering the patterns of brain regions involved in different story reading subprocesses. PloS one , 9(11):e112575

    2014

  54. [62]

    Weiner, K. S. and Zilles, K. (2016). The anatomical and functional specialization of the fusiform gyrus. Neuropsychologia , 83:48--62

    2016

  55. [63]

    and Cribben, I

    Xiong, X. and Cribben, I. (2023). Beyond linear dynamic functional connectivity: a vine copula change point model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 32(3):853--872

    2023

  56. [64]

    Zhang, W., Cribben, I., and Guindani, M. (2021). Bayesian time-varying tensor vector autoregressive models for dynamic effective connectivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.14083

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhao, Q., Hautamaki, V., and Fr \"a nti, P. (2008). Knee point detection in BIC for detecting the number of clusters. In International Conference on Advanced Concepts for Intelligent Vision Systems , pages 664--673. Springer

    2008

  58. [66]

    Zhou, H., Li, L., and Zhu, H. (2013). Tensor regression with applications in neuroimaging data analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 108(502):540--552

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.