Targeted empirical Bayes for more supervised joint factor analysis

David B. Dunson; Glenn Palmer

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Targeted empirical Bayes for more supervised joint factor analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 This paper claims that a joint Gaussian factor model can be made more supervised by estimating the response's residual variance with an empirical Bayes step aimed at predicting y from x, and that this improves predictive performance and…

desk verdict A sensible and clearly written paper that promises more than its own tables deliver; the gains over the joint Bayesian factor model are tiny and come without uncertainty bounds, so it needs a tempering of claims and a real comparison set before it earns its abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11351 v1 pith:VZNOS3TF submitted 2025-05-16 stat.ME

Glenn Palmer , David B. Dunson This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62H2562F1562J07

keywords jointfactoranalysistargetedempiricalBayesresponseresidualvariancesupervisedmodelsprincipalcomponentregressionhigh-dimensionalpredictorsmixtureexposuresphthalates

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

Joint Bayesian factor models infer latent structure from the joint distribution of predictors and response, so when the number of predictors p is large, the predictor covariance can dominate and the fitted factors can miss signal that is weak in x but decisive for y. The paper claims that one hyperparameter—the response's residual variance, $\sigma_y^2$—can re-target the model without changing the model family: instead of sampling it with the joint likelihood, estimate it by cross-validation to minimize prediction error of y given x. In a one-factor calculation this produces a phase transition: as $\sigma_y^2$ is forced down, the optimal factor loadings switch from the dominant predictor factor to the outcome-relevant factor. The paper states this mechanism as a postulate for multi-factor shrinkage-prior models and supports it empirically: in simulations where the outcome loads only on the weakest predictor factor, its Targeted Empirical Bayes Factor Regression (TEB-FAR) becomes the best predictor once training sets are large enough, and in NHANES phthalate–BMI data it outperforms joint Bayesian factor models, lasso, ridge, and OLS for training sets of 400 or more.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the response residual variance $\sigma_y^2$ in the Gaussian joint factor model, estimated by cross-validated predictive accuracy of y|x rather than by the joint likelihood—the paper names the resulting procedure TEB-FAR (Targeted Empirical Bayes Factor Regression). A named identity carries the argument: the one-factor induced regression variance $\sigma^2 = \sigma_y^2 + \gamma^2/(1 + \sum_j \lambda_j^2/\sigma_j^2)$ and the coefficient formula $\beta \propto \gamma \lambda_j/\sigma_j^2$ show that a small fixed $\sigma_y^2$ forces the outcome loading $\gamma$ away from zero and makes the likelihood penalize loadings that are poor for y|x. This produces the phase transition in the KL-optimal loadings, and the same $\sigma_y^2$ then serves as a tuning parameter for how supervised the factor analysis is. The remaining machinery is an overfitted factor model with an increasing shrinkage prior that starts with a large upper bound on the number of factors and shrinks unnecessary columns of the loadings matrix to zero.

What would settle it

Compute the KL-optimal k-factor approximation to a known multi-factor Gaussian model as a function of fixed $\sigma_y^2$, with the outcome loading only on the weakest factor; if no $\sigma_y^2$ below the marginal variance causes the loadings to align with the outcome factor, the mechanism fails. Alternatively, run the paper's Scenario 1 at n_train = 1500 many times: if TEB-FAR's cross-validated $\sigma_y^2$ does not yield lower test MSE than the joint Bayesian factor model, the central predictive claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the response residual variance $\sigma_y^2$ is not merely a noise parameter but a dial that controls which latent factors the joint likelihood rewards. The paper works out the one-factor special case, where the induced regression of y on x has coefficients $\beta = \left(\gamma / \left(1 + \sum_j \lambda_j^2/\sigma_j^2\right)\right)(\lambda_1/\sigma_1^2,\dots,\lambda_p/\sigma_p^2)^T$ and residual variance $\sigma^2 = \sigma_y^2 + \gamma^2/\left(1 + \sum_j \lambda_j^2/\sigma_j^2\right)$; forcing $\sigma_y^2$ small forces $\gamma^2$ up, which magnifies the penalty for choosing loadings $\lambda$ that predict y poorly. In the motivating two-factor example, the KL-optimal one-factor approximation aligns with the first factor and models y as noise, but as $\sigma_y^2$ is decreased along a grid, the optimal loadings undergo a sharp phase transition near $\sigma_y^2 \approx 0.06$ and align instead with the second factor—even though the resulting joint model is worse for x alone. The empirical Bayes estimator selects $\sigma_y^2$ by cross-validation on a grid from 0 to 1 for standardized data, then the remaining parameters and the number of factors are learned with an overfitted shrinkage-prior factor model. The paper's claim is that this simple change makes the factor model "more supervised" without relaxing the conditional-independence structure.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the phase transition proved for one factor—forcing $\sigma_y^2$ down makes the optimal loadings switch from the dominant factor to the outcome-relevant factor—continues to hold when there are multiple factors and shrinkage priors; Section 2.3 labels this a postulate, and the only support offered is simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In settings where the response depends on a minor factor of the predictors, TEB-FAR can recover predictive signal that a fully Bayesian joint factor model misses; in the paper's Scenario 1, TEB-FAR achieves the lowest test MSE among all methods once the training set has at least 1,500 observations.
The selected $\sigma_y^2$ value is stable and interpretable: it sits on a fixed grid [0,1] for standardized data, so cross-validation within each training set does not suffer the tuning-instability that the paper observes for lasso and ridge in the NHANES comparison.
TEB-FAR can change substantive inferences, not just prediction: in the NHANES application the induced regression coefficient for MC1 moves from strictly positive to include zero, while MCOH moves from including zero to strictly positive, relative to the joint Bayesian factor model.
When the true data-generating process is a high-signal factor model or a sparse linear regression, TEB-FAR performs about as well as the joint Bayesian factor model, so the targeted modification does not appear to harm performance in settings that already work.
By shrinking $\sigma_y^2$, TEB-FAR reduces regularization on the joint covariance, moving the estimated joint covariance substantially closer to the Pearson sample covariance (sum of squared differences drops from $5.6\times 10^{-2}$ to $4.8\times 10^{-3}$).

Reading between the lines

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

If the phase transition is general, then for any two-factor Gaussian model there should be a critical $\sigma_y^2$ below which the KL-optimal factor assignment flips, expressible in terms of loadings and idiosyncratic variances; deriving it in the multi-factor case would turn the paper's postulate into a theorem and could predict when TEB-FAR helps.
The same targeted-empirical-Bayes logic should transfer to any joint model with a nuisance likelihood component that threatens to dominate inference—high-dimensional covariates in mixed models, for example—by cross-validating only the target component's variance.
The NHANES coefficient shifts should not be read as causal exposure effects; they are predictions conditional on the fitted factor model, and the paper's own comparison is about predictive accuracy rather than causal identification.
A direct replication test is to apply TEB-FAR to other environmental-mixture datasets where the outcome is suspected to track a low-variance exposure pattern; predictive gains appearing exactly in that regime would support the mechanism, while gains everywhere would suggest generic shrinkage.

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: the idea is simple and legitimately new in this form, but the abstract overclaims. The reported MSE advantages over the joint Bayesian factor model are on the order of 0.001 to 0.003, with no standard errors or per-split distributions, so "substantial" is doing a lot of work. I'd send it to a serious referee, but the referee should ask for a more honest summary and a stronger empirical section.

What is genuinely nice: the targeted EB selection of the outcome residual variance sigma_y^2 is a clean, practical modification of joint factor analysis. The one-factor algebra in Section 2.3 is correct as far as I can tell, and the phase-transition demonstration is an instructive toy. The authors are also honest that the generalization to k>1 is a postulate—they don't dress it up as a theorem. The simulation design covers a useful range of scenarios, and the code is promised.

The soft spots are mostly about evidence. In Table 1, the best TEB-FAR edge is 0.003, and in Table 2 the best edge is 0.002; all methods are effectively tied at larger n. Without error bars or split-level distributions, those differences could easily be noise. The Figure 3 gains are visually striking but rely on an oracle-style sweep over sigma_y^2; when sigma_y^2 is actually selected by CV in Table 1, the gains mostly vanish. The motivation phase transition is computed from true parameters, not fitted models, so it is a heuristic rather than proof of the mechanism. And the most relevant baselines—supervised PCA, partial factor modeling, PLS—are not compared, so it is hard to tell whether the modest win over JBFM transfers to a win over methods already designed for supervised dimensionality reduction.

On the other side of the ledger, the method is not broken. The empirical work is reproducible in principle, the authors flag the limits of their own scenarios (Scenarios 2 and 3 show no meaningful gain), and the inferential differences they highlight are plausible. This is a useful contribution in search of sharper evidence.

For peer review: yes, send it out. The idea is worth discussing and the execution is careful enough to engage with seriously. But the revision should temper the claims, add uncertainty measures, and add at least the supervised PCA and partial factor baselines. If the evidence stays this thin, the abstract needs to say so.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Targeted Empirical Bayes Factor Regression (TEB-FAR), a modification of joint Bayesian Gaussian factor models in which the residual variance of the response, sigma_y^2, is estimated by an empirical Bayes procedure that targets out-of-sample prediction of y from x, rather than being inferred from the joint likelihood. The motivation is that joint factor models can miss weak-but-predictive latent factors when the predictors dominate the joint likelihood. The authors demonstrate with a one-factor example that fixing sigma_y^2 to a small value can reorder which factor is prioritized, and then postulate that this intuition extends to k>1. They evaluate TEB-FAR on an NHANES phthalate-BMI application and on three simulation scenarios, comparing against a joint Bayesian factor model, lasso, ridge, and OLS. The reported findings are that TEB-FAR can outperform competitors in some settings, but the gains are small in magnitude and are presented without uncertainty quantification.

Significance. The idea of targeting the residual variance of the response in a joint factor model is simple and potentially useful, and the paper is clearly written with reproducible code provided. If the claimed improvements were robust and substantial, this would be a useful practical contribution to supervised factor analysis and to environmental health applications. However, as reported, the empirical support for the central claim is weak: the largest improvements over the joint Bayesian factor model are on the order of 0.001--0.003 in MSE, with no standard errors or per-split distributions, and the more favorable results in Figure 3 rely on an oracle-style choice of sigma_y^2 rather than the data-driven CV procedure that the method actually uses. The paper also explicitly postulates, rather than proves, that the one-factor phase-transition intuition generalizes to k>1, with only simulation evidence for that generalization.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2.2, Table 2] The central claim of the abstract, that the method leads to 'substantial improvements in simulation performance,' is not supported by the reported numbers. In Scenario 1, the largest TEB-FAR advantage over the joint Bayesian factor model is 0.002 (n=1500) and 0.001 at n=2000; at n=200 the joint model is better (1.010 vs 1.007). In Scenarios 2 and 3, TEB-FAR is essentially tied with or slightly worse than the joint model. These differences are far smaller than the word 'substantial' implies, and no standard errors, confidence intervals, or per-split results are provided, so the differences could easily be sampling noise. The authors should either report uncertainty quantification (e.g., standard errors across the 50 replications) or soften the claim.
[Section 3.1, Figure 3 vs Table 1] Figure 3, which visually shows a substantial advantage for TEB-FAR, is based on sweeping over a grid of fixed sigma_y^2 values, which is an oracle-style comparison. The actual procedure selects sigma_y^2 by 10-fold cross-validation within the training set, and Table 1 shows that when this is done, the gains over the joint Bayesian factor model shrink to at most 0.003 (n=400: 0.973 vs 0.976) and are negative at n=200 (0.993 vs 0.992). The main evidence for the method's practical value therefore appears to be the oracle curve, not the data-driven procedure. The authors should present the CV-selected results as the primary evidence and clarify that Figure 3 is diagnostic rather than a fair comparison.
[Section 3.1, Figure 3 (lasso/ridge comparison)] In Figure 3, lasso and ridge are evaluated at 'the optimal choice of their tuning parameters over a grid,' apparently selected using the test data, while TEB-FAR is evaluated at a fixed grid of sigma_y^2 values. This is not a fair comparison, because it gives lasso/ridge oracle tuning on the test set. The comparison in Table 1, where lasso and ridge use internal cross-validation, is more appropriate; the text should emphasize that and not rely on Figure 3 for the performance claims.
[Section 2.3] The paper states, 'we postulate that this intuition generalizes for k>1, and we support this hypothesis with empirical results in Section 3.' This is a key load-bearing assumption: the entire method's mechanism for improving prediction relies on shrinking sigma_y^2 causing the model to reallocate factors toward those predictive of y. The one-factor analytic example is instructive, but it does not establish that the same reordering occurs in multi-factor models with shrinkage priors. The simulation evidence in Section 3 is not connected to the phase-transition mechanism—the authors do not show, for example, that the estimated loadings in Scenario 1 shift to favor the weak factor when sigma_y^2 is reduced. The manuscript would be strengthened by either a formal argument for k>1 or a direct simulation demonstration of the reordering mechanism.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2.1] Typo: 'emprical Bayes' should be 'empirical Bayes'.
[Section 4] Typo: 'targetting' should be 'targeting'.
[References] The reference list entry for Friedman et al. has 'Repositary' instead of 'Repository'.
[Section 2.2] The grid for sigma_y^2 is described as 'values from 0 to 1' in Section 2.2 but '0.01 to 1' in Section 3.1; please make the description consistent.
[Section 3.1.1] In the sentence about the induced covariance matrix, the sum of squared differences is reported in the text as dropping from 5.6 x 10^-2 to 4.8 x 10^-3, but the supplement reports mean squared differences of 1.1 x 10^-3 and 1.1 x 10^-4. Please clarify which metric is being reported in each place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tuned residual variance is selected by cross-validation on training data and evaluated on held-out test sets; the motivating phase-transition analysis is computed from the true generative parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Section 2.2 defines the empirical Bayes estimate of sigma_y^2 as the value optimizing predictive performance of y from x via cross-validation, and all reported predictive results in Table 1, Table 2, and the NHANES analysis are computed on test sets held out from the 50 train/test splits (Sections 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2). This is a standard tuning-by-cross-validation protocol, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The phase-transition motivation in Section 2.1 is computed from the known generative Lambda and Sigma of the toy model, not from the fitted model, so it is a heuristic motivation rather than a self-fulfilling prediction. Section 2.3 explicitly labels the k>1 generalization as a postulate and supports it with simulations, which is an honest limitation rather than circularity. The self-citations (Bhattacharya and Dunson 2011 for the shrinkage prior; Poworoznek et al. 2021 for factor alignment) are supporting computational tools, not load-bearing arguments or imported uniqueness theorems. The near-concern is that Figure 3 sweeps sigma_y^2 over a grid rather than showing the CV-selected value; however, Table 1 reports the actual 10-fold-CV version of the method, so the paper does not conceal the distinction. The reported gains are small and may be overstated, but that is an empirical-evidence concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only new free parameter is the targeted sigma_y^2. The method relies on the standard factor model and the Bhattacharya-Dunson shrinkage prior from the literature. The generalization from one to many factors is an unproven postulate.

free parameters (1)

sigma_y^2 = varies, around 0.5 for NHANES
The residual variance of the response is fixed to a value selected by cross-validation on a grid from 0 to 1 for standardized data; this is the central tuning parameter of the method.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Data (x_i, y_i) follow a Gaussian latent factor model with diagonal idiosyncratic variances
Section 1.1 defines model (1) that the entire method is built on; if the true data generating process is not a linear Gaussian factor model, the method's motivation weakens.
standard math The multiplicative gamma process prior of Bhattacharya and Dunson (2011) consistently selects the number of factors and provides good estimates of loadings
The paper relies on this prior for all experiments; it is a known result from the cited literature and is not re-derived.
ad hoc to paper The phase-transition intuition for k=1 generalizes to k>1
Section 2.3 states this as a postulate, supported only by simulation results, not by theoretical derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Targeted empirical Bayes for more supervised joint factor analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZNOS3TF

@misc{pith2026250511351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Targeted empirical Bayes for more supervised joint factor analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZNOS3TF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11351}
}

read the original abstract

Joint Bayesian factor models are popular for characterizing relationships between multivariate correlated predictors and a response variable. Standard models assume that all variables, including both the predictors and the response, are conditionally independent given latent factors. In marginalizing out these factors, one obtains a low rank plus diagonal factorization for the joint covariance, which implies a linear regression for the response given the predictors. Although there are many desirable properties of such models, these methods can struggle to identify the signal when the response is not dependent on the dominant principal components in the predictors. To address this problem, we propose estimating the residual variance in the response model with an empirical Bayes procedure that targets predictive performance of the response given the predictors. We illustrate that this can lead to substantial improvements in simulation performance. We are particularly motivated by studies assessing the health effects of environmental exposures and provide an illustrative application to NHANES data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11351 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Distance between the KL-optimal loadings vector in the 1-factor model and each column of the true loadings matrix Λ as a function of fixed σ 2 y . In the above, the ξjls are assigned independent gamma prior distributions, while the τls are modeled as a product of gamma random variables, specified so that τ −1 l decreases for increasing l at a rate learned from the data. Thus, for high values of l, the entries of Λ a… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Log likelihoods for the KL-optimal 1-factor models conditional on fixed values of σ 2 y , computed for 100,000 observations generated from the true 2-factor model described in Section 2.1. By definition, the joint log likelihood for (x, y) is equal to the sum of the log likelihoods for x and y|x. Although the formulas here are for the 1-factor case, we postulate that this intuition generalizes for k > 1, and we supp… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average out-of-sample prediction MSE for the NHANES data set across 50 train/test splits as a function of fixed σ 2 y for four different training set sizes. Lasso and ridge MSE values are for the optimal choice of their tuning parameters over a grid. 3.1.1 Estimated factors by TEB-FAR vs. joint Bayesian factor model To understand the shifts in parameter estimates driving our approach’s gains in predictive performanc… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Aligned posterior mean columns of Λ with the four highest outcome loading magnitudes estimated by TEB-FAR with σ 2 y = 0.5 (left) and a joint Bayesian factor model with multiplicative gamma process prior on Λ (right). In both panels, these columns include all aligned c…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Posterior means and 95% credible intervals for induced linear regression coefficients for BMI regressed on 19 phthalates using TEB-FAR with σ 2 y = 0.5 (left) and a joint Bayesian factor model with multiplicative gamma process prior on Λ (right). 3.2 Stability of estim…

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Out-of-sample prediction MSE for NHANES data with ntrain=50 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png]

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Out-of-sample prediction MSE for NHANES data with ntrain=1600. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png]

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Posterior mean idiosyncratic variances estimated by TEB-FAR with σ 2 y = 0.5 (orange) and a joint Bayesian factor model with multiplicative gamma process prior on Λ (blue). 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Posterior mean covariance terms between BMI and each of 19 phthalates estimated by TEB-FAR with σ 2 y = 0.5 (green) and a joint Bayesian factor model (JBFM) with multiplicative gamma process prior on Λ (blue), compared to the Pearson sample covariances (red). The mean …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Prediction by supervised principal components

Eric Bair, Trevor Hastie, Debashis Paul, and Robert Tibshirani. Prediction by supervised principal components. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101 0 (473): 0 119--137, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis: A Unified Approach

David J Bartholomew, Martin Knott, and Irini Moustaki. Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis: A Unified Approach. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

Sparse Bayesian infinite factor models

Anirban Bhattacharya and David B Dunson. Sparse Bayesian infinite factor models. Biometrika, 98 0 (2): 0 291--306, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

Decoupling shrinkage and selection in Gaussian linear factor analysis

Henrique Bolfarine, Carlos M Carvalho, Hedibert F Lopes, and Jared S Murray. Decoupling shrinkage and selection in Gaussian linear factor analysis. Bayesian Analysis, 19 0 (1): 0 181--203, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Notes on some aspects of regression analysis

David Roxbee Cox. Notes on some aspects of regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 131 0 (3): 0 265--279, 1968

work page 1968
[6]

Are latent factor regression and sparse regression adequate? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (546): 0 1076--1088, 2024

Jianqing Fan, Zhipeng Lou, and Mengxin Yu. Are latent factor regression and sparse regression adequate? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (546): 0 1076--1088, 2024

2024
[7]

Package ‘glmnet’

Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, Rob Tibshirani, Balasubramanian Narasimhan, Kenneth Tay, Noah Simon, and Junyang Qian. Package ‘glmnet’. CRAN R Repositary, 595, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Generalized cumulative shrinkage process priors with applications to sparse Bayesian factor analysis

Sylvia Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter. Generalized cumulative shrinkage process priors with applications to sparse Bayesian factor analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 381 0 (2247): 0 20220148, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 28 references

[9]

Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination

Peter J Green. Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika, 82 0 (4): 0 711--732, 1995

1995
[10]

Some cautionary notes on the use of principal components regression

Ali S Hadi and Robert F Ling. Some cautionary notes on the use of principal components regression. The American Statistician, 52 0 (1): 0 15--19, 1998

1998
[11]

Decoupling shrinkage and selection in Bayesian linear models: a posterior summary perspective

P Richard Hahn and Carlos M Carvalho. Decoupling shrinkage and selection in Bayesian linear models: a posterior summary perspective. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110 0 (509): 0 435--448, 2015

2015
[12]

Partial factor modeling: predictor-dependent shrinkage for linear regression

P Richard Hahn, Carlos M Carvalho, and Sayan Mukherjee. Partial factor modeling: predictor-dependent shrinkage for linear regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108 0 (503): 0 999--1008, 2013

2013
[13]

Two case studies in the application of principal component analysis

John NR Jeffers. Two case studies in the application of principal component analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 16 0 (3): 0 225--236, 1967

1967
[14]

A note on the use of principal components in regression

Ian T Jolliffe. A note on the use of principal components in regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics, 31 0 (3): 0 300--303, 1982

1982
[15]

Bayesian cumulative shrinkage for infinite factorizations

Sirio Legramanti, Daniele Durante, and David B Dunson. Bayesian cumulative shrinkage for infinite factorizations. Biometrika, 107 0 (3): 0 745--752, 2020

2020
[16]

A Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to sparse estimation

Aihua Li, Surya T Tokdar, and Jason Xu. A Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to sparse estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00126, 2025

2025 arXiv
[17]

Bayesian model assessment in factor analysis

Hedibert Freitas Lopes and Mike West. Bayesian model assessment in factor analysis. Statistica Sinica, pages 41--67, 2004

2004
[18]

Principal components regression in exploratory statistical research

William F Massy. Principal components regression in exploratory statistical research. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60 0 (309): 0 234--256, 1965

1965
[19]

Supervised functional principal component analysis

Yunlong Nie, Liangliang Wang, Baisen Liu, and Jiguo Cao. Supervised functional principal component analysis. Statistics and Computing, 28: 0 713--723, 2018

2018
[20]

Selection and validation of parameters in multiple linear and principal component regressions

Jos \'e Carlos M Pires, Fernando Gomes Martins, SIV Sousa, Maria CM Alvim-Ferraz, and MC Pereira. Selection and validation of parameters in multiple linear and principal component regressions. Environmental Modelling & Software, 23 0 (1): 0 50--55, 2008

2008
[21]

infinitefactor: Bayesian infinite factor models

Evan Poworoznek. infinitefactor: Bayesian infinite factor models. CRAN Repository, 2020. URL https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/infinitefactor. R package version 1.0

2020
[22]

Efficiently resolving rotational ambiguity in Bayesian matrix sampling with matching

Evan Poworoznek, Niccolo Anceschi, Federico Ferrari, and David Dunson. Efficiently resolving rotational ambiguity in Bayesian matrix sampling with matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13783, 2021

2021 arXiv
[23]

Sparse supervised principal component analysis ( SSPCA ) for dimension reduction and variable selection

Sara Sharifzadeh, Ali Ghodsi, Line H Clemmensen, and Bjarne K Ersb ll. Sparse supervised principal component analysis ( SSPCA ) for dimension reduction and variable selection. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 65: 0 168--177, 2017

2017
[24]

Which principal components to utilize for principal component regression

Jon M Sutter, John H Kalivas, and Patrick M Lang. Which principal components to utilize for principal component regression. Journal of chemometrics, 6 0 (4): 0 217--225, 1992

1992
[25]

Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso

Robert Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 58 0 (1): 0 267--288, 1996

1996
[26]

large p, small n

Mike West. Bayesian factor regression models in the “large p, small n” paradigm. Bayesian Statistics, 2003

2003
[27]

Supervised probabilistic principal component analysis

Shipeng Yu, Kai Yu, Volker Tresp, Hans-Peter Kriegel, and Mingrui Wu. Supervised probabilistic principal component analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 464--473, 2006

2006
[28]

Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net

Hui Zou and Trevor Hastie. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 67 0 (2): 0 301--320, 2005

2005

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Prediction by supervised principal components

Eric Bair, Trevor Hastie, Debashis Paul, and Robert Tibshirani. Prediction by supervised principal components. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101 0 (473): 0 119--137, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis: A Unified Approach

David J Bartholomew, Martin Knott, and Irini Moustaki. Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis: A Unified Approach. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Sparse Bayesian infinite factor models

Anirban Bhattacharya and David B Dunson. Sparse Bayesian infinite factor models. Biometrika, 98 0 (2): 0 291--306, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Decoupling shrinkage and selection in Gaussian linear factor analysis

Henrique Bolfarine, Carlos M Carvalho, Hedibert F Lopes, and Jared S Murray. Decoupling shrinkage and selection in Gaussian linear factor analysis. Bayesian Analysis, 19 0 (1): 0 181--203, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Notes on some aspects of regression analysis

David Roxbee Cox. Notes on some aspects of regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 131 0 (3): 0 265--279, 1968

work page 1968

[6] [6]

Are latent factor regression and sparse regression adequate? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (546): 0 1076--1088, 2024

Jianqing Fan, Zhipeng Lou, and Mengxin Yu. Are latent factor regression and sparse regression adequate? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (546): 0 1076--1088, 2024

2024

[7] [7]

Package ‘glmnet’

Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, Rob Tibshirani, Balasubramanian Narasimhan, Kenneth Tay, Noah Simon, and Junyang Qian. Package ‘glmnet’. CRAN R Repositary, 595, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Generalized cumulative shrinkage process priors with applications to sparse Bayesian factor analysis

Sylvia Fr \"u hwirth-Schnatter. Generalized cumulative shrinkage process priors with applications to sparse Bayesian factor analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 381 0 (2247): 0 20220148, 2023

work page 2023