Simultaneous estimation of normal means with side information

Sihai Dave Zhao

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Simultaneous estimation of normal means with side information

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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, in the Gaussian sequence model with paired auxiliary data, a data-driven rule found by minimizing an unbiased risk estimate asymptotically attains the best risk achievable by any separable estimator.

desk verdict A careful compound-decision paper whose main theorem covers a regularized, ρ>0 procedure on a fixed set, while the implemented and tested version uses ρ=0 on a data-dependent grid—a real gap, but one the author openly flags. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06129 v2 pith:EE2R23DD submitted 2019-08-16 stat.ME

Sihai Dave Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62C2562C1262F1062H12

keywords normalmeanssideinformationcompounddecisionseparablerulesSUREempiricalBayesdataintegrationhigh-dimensionalclassification

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

The paper studies how to use a second, auxiliary Gaussian sequence to estimate the primary means of a first sequence. It derives the oracle optimal separable estimator, a weighted average of the primary means with joint-normal density weights, and then builds a practical version that picks its tuning parameters by minimizing an unbiased estimate of its own risk. The main theorem states that this data-driven rule is asymptotically as good as the best separable rule that knows the true means. The paper also shows that integrating auxiliary data can improve high-dimensional classification, and it demonstrates the gain in a breast-cancer gene-expression analysis. Its deeper point is that side information helps even when the auxiliary observations are statistically independent of the primary ones, as long as the two mean vectors are related.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the oracle kernel rule $f^\star(x_1,x_2)=\sum_j \theta_{j1}p_j^0(x_1,x_2)/\sum_j p_j^0(x_1,x_2)$, a separable posterior expectation under the empirical prior. A regularized version $f^{\rho}$ adds a small positive constant to the denominator so the rule is well defined everywhere. The data-driven estimator substitutes the free parameter vector $t$ into the same form and chooses $t\in T$ to minimize an unbiased risk estimate derived from Stein's lemma. The proof chains three results: the regularized oracle has the same asymptotic risk as the oracle, the SURE statistic approximates the true loss uniformly over $T$, and minimizing that approximation therefore yields the oracle risk. The uniform approximation is proved with empirical-process truncation, symmetrization, and a covering-number bound that approximates the empirical prior by a finite mixture with a controlled number of atoms.

What would settle it

Set one primary mean to $\theta_{i1}=n^{1/3}$ with all other means zero and $\theta_{i2}=0$, then compare the proposed estimator's average loss with the oracle separable risk as $n$ grows; the claimed asymptotic optimality fails if the gap does not shrink to zero, since Assumption 1 is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3: for independent pairs $X_{i1}\sim N(\theta_{i1},\sigma_1^2)$ and $X_{i2}\sim N(\theta_{i2},\sigma_2^2)$, the estimator $\delta_{\hat t}^{\rho}$ that minimizes the unbiased risk estimate $\operatorname{sure}(t)$ over a bounded set $T$ satisfies $\lim_{n\to\infty}\{E\ell_n(\hat t)-R_n(\theta,\delta^\star)\}\le 0$, where $R_n(\theta,\delta^\star)$ is the minimum risk among all separable decision rules. The oracle $\delta^\star$ is the posterior expectation of $\theta_{i1}$ under the discrete empirical prior, and the data-driven estimator approximates it by replacing the unknown means with free tuning parameters selected by SURE. Thus the procedure achieves oracle-level separable risk without requiring any explicit model for how $\theta_{i2}$ relates to $\theta_{i1}$.

Load-bearing premise

All true means in both sequences must stay within $Cn^{1/4-\eta}$ in absolute value for some positive constants $C$ and $\eta$; if a nontrivial share of means grows faster than this, the regularized oracle is not guaranteed to match the oracle and the SURE approximation to the true loss can break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Integrative estimation becomes fully data-driven: no model for the relationship between the primary mean and the auxiliary observation is needed, so nonlinear or unknown relationships cause no misspecification problem.
Asymptotically, using an auxiliary sequence cannot hurt: when the side information is uninformative the rule learns to discard it, and when informative it approaches the oracle separable risk.
Plugging the estimated means into the Greenshtein-Park classification rule yields an integrative high-dimensional classifier; in the paper's breast-cancer analysis, the integrative rule achieved the lowest misclassification rate for treatment-response prediction.
The framework extends to correlated primary and auxiliary observations, where auxiliary data help even when the mean vectors are unrelated, because the correlation itself carries information about the primary means.
The estimator, although not designed for sparse means, matches or beats sparse-focused methods in simulations when the side information is strong and the sample size is large.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial: the same SURE-minimization template should transfer to heteroscedastic sequences or unknown variances, where Stein-type unbiased risk estimates already exist; the main obstacle is computational rather than statistical.
Editorial: at small sample sizes with uninformative side data, the procedure initially underperforms single-sequence methods; an adaptive screening step that tests whether the auxiliary sequence is informative before integrating would likely close that gap.
Editorial: the finite-mixture approximation used in the proof suggests a practical alternative to coordinate descent: solve for a small number of support points and weights of the empirical prior, turning the nonconvex optimization into a lower-dimensional problem.
Editorial: because the oracle rule is a conditional expectation, standard diagnostics such as binned observed-versus-estimated means and bootstrap intervals could be built to measure how much side information is being borrowed in a given dataset.

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

The paper is a solid contribution to the normal-means-with-side-information literature. What is genuinely new is the direct SURE-minimization strategy: instead of estimating the oracle rule through f- or g-modeling, the author proposes choosing t by minimizing an unbiased risk estimate, and proves a uniform approximation theorem and an oracle inequality for the resulting separable rules. The oracle rule itself is derivative—as the paper acknowledges, it follows from the fundamental theorem of compound decision problems—but the estimator and its risk analysis are the novel part. The proofs in the appendix are detailed and follow standard empirical-process machinery; I did not find a red flag in the mathematical core. The simulations are honest and the method does appear to approach oracle performance when the side information is informative. The genomics illustration is what it is: an illustrative application, not a rigorous benchmark, and the lack of error bars there is a minor weakness.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note says. Theorem 3 is proved for the estimator (11) that minimizes sure(t) over the fixed, non-random set T in (10), with known constants C and η and with ρ > 0. The implementation in Section 4.3 uses ρ = 0, a data-dependent search set \hat T, and coordinate descent, with the author explicitly saying that bridging the theory-implementation gap is future work. So the abstract's claim that the data-driven rule asymptotically achieves the optimal separable risk is literally true only for the theoretical procedure, not for the procedure that actually runs in simulations and the data example. I do not think this is fatal—the regularized estimator is a legitimate object, and the paper is admirably transparent about the gap—but it is a real limitation, and it should be surfaced in the abstract or at least the introduction rather than resting in the implementation section.

Assumption 1, the uniform growth bound |θ_id| ≤ C n^{1/4−η}, is restrictive but comparable to weak-moment conditions used elsewhere in this literature; I would call it a conditioning assumption rather than a defect. The citation pattern is appropriate, with proper credit to Robbins, Jiang, Zhang, and others. No self-citation inflation.

Who gets value from this paper: statisticians working on compound decision theory, empirical Bayes, and integrative genomics methods. It deserves serious refereeing. I would send it out, with the request that the author clarify the scope of the theorem versus the implementation and, if possible, add a theoretical justification for the data-dependent feasible set or tone down the abstract accordingly.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies simultaneous estimation of n normal means θ_i1 from primary observations X_i1, with auxiliary observations X_i2 used as side information. The estimation problem is formulated as a compound decision problem over separable rules of the form δ_i(x1,x2)=f(x1,x2). The author derives an oracle separable rule f* (4), introduces a regularized oracle f*_ρ (6), and proposes a fully data-driven estimator obtained by minimizing an unbiased SURE-type risk estimate sure(t) over a feasible set T (10). The main theoretical results are Theorem 1 (regularized oracle is asymptotically equivalent to the oracle), Theorem 2 (uniform approximation of the loss by sure(t) over T), and Theorem 3 (the data-driven estimator asymptotically attains the optimal separable risk). The paper also reports simulations and an integrative genomics classification application, and it describes an R package implementation called cole.

Significance. If Theorems 1–3 hold as stated, the paper makes a useful contribution to compound decision theory and integrative analysis: it provides a direct risk-minimization route to the oracle separable rule with side information, avoiding the intermediate f- or g-modeling steps, and it gives detailed proofs using SURE and empirical process techniques. The oracle derivation in Proposition 1 is elegant, and the numerical results suggest practical potential. However, the significance is currently limited by a substantial gap between the theoretical procedure analyzed in the theorems and the procedure that is actually implemented and evaluated in the simulations and data analysis.

major comments (2)

[§4.3 and Theorem 3] Theorem 3 is proved only for the exact minimizer of sure(t) over the fixed, non-random set T in (10), with 0<ρ≤1 and the constants C and η of Assumption 1 assumed known. The implementation described in §4.3, and every simulation and data analysis in Sections 5 and 6, instead uses ρ=0 and minimizes over the data-dependent set \hat T = ∏_i [X_id−Mσ_d, X_id+Mσ_d] with M=5. The proof of Theorem 2 requires ρ>0 in the denominator bounds, for example (18) and the bounds following (34), and the uniform approximation of sure(t) by the loss is established only over the fixed set T, not over the random set \hat T. The manuscript itself states in §4.3 that 'bridging the gap between the theoretical procedure and its practical implementation is an important direction for future work.' As a consequence, the abstract's claim that the data-driven rule asymptotically achieves the optimal separable risk, and the simulation evidence for the implemented rule, are not covered by the theorems as stated. The paper should either extend the theory to \hat T and ρ=0, or sharply qualify the claims so that the theorem and the implementation are clearly distinguished.
[§4.3, Eq. (11)] The estimator in Theorem 3 is \hat t = argmin_{t∈T} sure(t), an exact global minimizer. The implementation instead uses coordinate descent with K=10 equally spaced candidate values per coordinate and a tolerance of 10^{-5}; sure(t) is nonconvex, and no result is given showing that this procedure reaches the global minimizer. Therefore the numerical comparisons in Section 5 and the genomics application in Section 6 evaluate an approximate, possibly local-minimum version of the estimator, and they cannot be interpreted as direct verifications of Theorem 3. This is a second gap between theory and implementation that should be stated explicitly, together with either a convergence guarantee for the optimization algorithm or a clear caveat that the theoretical result applies to the exact global minimizer.

minor comments (4)

[Theorem 3] The statement 'lim_{n→∞} {Eℓ_n(\hat t) − R_n(θ,δ*)} ≤ 0' is not a well-formed limit statement; the proof actually establishes limsup ≤ 0. Moreover, because δ_{\hat t}_ρ is a separable rule, Proposition 1 implies its risk is never below R_n(θ,δ*), so the correct conclusion is lim_{n→∞} {Eℓ_n(\hat t) − R_n(θ,δ*)} = 0.
[Appendix C, proof of Theorem 1] The definition of the set A2 is printed as A2 = {(x1,x2) : −C n^{1/4−η} < x1 ≤ −C n^{1/4−η}}, which is empty; the later integration from −C n^{1/4−η} to C n^{1/4−η} indicates the intended upper endpoint is +C n^{1/4−η}.
[§4.3, paragraph on \hat T] The sentence 'it is known from Theorem 1 that E{sure(t)} achieves a global minimum at t_{jd}=θ_{jd}' is not a consequence of Theorem 1 for the regularized family with ρ>0; Theorem 1 only compares the risk of δρ* with the oracle risk and does not identify θ as the minimizer over all t. For ρ=0, t=θ makes δ^θ_0 exactly the oracle f*, but ρ=0 is excluded from Theorem 2. The statement should be corrected or proved.
[General presentation] The paper would benefit from a concise summary table that distinguishes the theoretical estimator (11) over T with 0<ρ≤1 from the practical estimator over \hat T with ρ=0, and from an explicit statement about which claims are asymptotic, which are finite-sample, and which are only supported by simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the oracle, SURE, and oracle-inequality steps are self-contained against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is non-circular. Proposition 1 derives the oracle separable rule f*(x1,x2) = sum_j theta_j1 p0_j / sum_j p0_j from the compound-decision identity, citing external classical results (Robbins 1951; Jiang et al. 2009). Theorem 1 is a direct analytic comparison between the regularized oracle (6) and the oracle (4) under Assumption 1. Theorem 2 establishes uniform convergence of the unbiased risk estimate sure(t) (8) to the loss l_n(t) (9) over the fixed set T (10), using Stein's lemma and empirical process bounds; no fitted constant or self-authored uniqueness theorem is invoked. Theorem 3 then combines Theorem 2 with the minimizing property of the data-driven t in (11) and Theorem 1, giving the asymptotic oracle inequality. The only self-citations (Zhao 2017; Dicker and Zhao 2016) are contextual or application-level and are not load-bearing for the theorems. The paper candidly notes that the implemented procedure uses rho = 0 and a data-dependent search set T_hat, which are not covered by Theorem 3; this is an acknowledged theory-implementation gap and a correctness/scope concern, not circularity. There is no equation in which the target risk is defined in terms of the estimator, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on Assumption 1 (bounded means), the independence and known-variance assumptions, and a technical approximation lemma from prior literature. The method itself introduces no new physical or probabilistic entities. The free parameters rho, M, and K are implementation choices that are not covered by the theoretical optimality result.

free parameters (3)

rho = 0 (default in implementation; theory requires 0 < rho <= 1)
Regularization constant in the denominator of the estimated rule. Theory in Theorems 1-3 requires rho > 0, but the implementation and all reported analyses use rho = 0, leaving an unproved gap.
M = 5
Multiplier on sigma_d defining the practical search set T_hat in Section 4.3. The paper chooses M = 5 by default, which is an ad hoc choice not derived from theory.
K = 10
Number of equally spaced candidates in each coordinate during coordinate descent. This is an algorithmic tuning parameter; the theory applies to the global minimizer, not the coordinate-descent output.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: |theta_id| <= C n^{1/4 - eta} for all i and d, for positive constants C and eta.
This uniform bound on the magnitude of the means is used in the proofs of Theorems 1, 2, and 3. It essentially restricts how variable the means can be and is stronger than moment-based assumptions used elsewhere in the literature.
domain assumption X_i1 and X_i2 are independent for each i, with known variances sigma_1^2 and sigma_2^2.
Stated in Section 2.1 as part of the problem formulation. The independence assumption is central to the oracle rule derivation and is relaxed only in the discussion.
domain assumption The theta_id are fixed nonrandom constants.
The compound decision framework treats the means as fixed, not random. This is standard for this literature and is used throughout the risk calculations.
standard math Lemma A.1 of Ghosal and Van Der Vaart (2001) on approximating empirical measures by discrete measures with K support points.
Used in the proof of Theorem 2, Section D.4, to construct a finite covering of the parameter set. The lemma is cited but not proved in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous estimation of normal means with side information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EE2R23DD

@misc{pith2026190806129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous estimation of normal means with side information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EE2R23DD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06129}
}

read the original abstract

The integrative analysis of multiple datasets is an important strategy in data analysis. It is increasingly popular in genomics, which enjoys a wealth of publicly available datasets that can be compared, contrasted, and combined in order to extract novel scientific insights. This paper studies a stylized example of data integration for a classical statistical problem: leveraging side information to estimate a vector of normal means. This task is formulated as a compound decision problem, an oracle integrative decision rule is derived, and a data-driven estimate of this rule based on minimizing an unbiased estimate of its risk is proposed. The data-driven rule is shown to asymptotically achieve the minimum possible risk among all separable decision rules, and it can outperform existing methods in numerical properties. The proposed procedure leads naturally to an integrative high-dimensional classification procedure, which is illustrated by combining data from two independent gene expression profiling studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06129 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Average losses for four different configurations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average misclassification errors for treatment response status or estrogen receptor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Average losses for four different configurations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[1]

Banerjee, G

T. Banerjee, G. Mukherjee, and W. Sun. Adaptive sparse estimation with side information. Technical report, University of Southern California, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

L. D. Brown and E. Greenshtein. Nonparametric empirical bayes and compound decision approaches to estimation of a high-dimensional vector of normal means. The Annals of Statistics, pages 1685--1704, 2009

2009
[3]

T. T. Cai. Minimax and adaptive inference in nonparametric function estimation. Statistical Science, pages 31--50, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

Castillo, A

I. Castillo, A. van der Vaart, et al. Needles and straw in a haystack: Posterior concentration for possibly sparse sequences. The Annals of Statistics, 40 0 (4): 0 2069--2101, 2012

work page 2012
[5]

Cohen, E

N. Cohen, E. Greenshtein, and Y. Ritov. Empirical bayes in the presence of explanatory variables. Statistica Sinica, pages 333--357, 2013

work page 2013
[6]

L. H. Dicker and S. D. Zhao. High-dimensional classification via nonparametric empirical bayes and maximum likelihood inference. Biometrika, pages 21--34, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

D. L. Donoho and I. M. Johnstone. Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage. Journal of the american statistical association, 90 0 (432): 0 1200--1224, 1995

1995
[8]

D. L. Donoho and J. M. Johnstone. Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. biometrika, 81 0 (3): 0 425--455, 1994

work page 1994

Show all 61 references

[9]

Edgar, M

R. Edgar, M. Domrachev, and A. E. Lash. Gene expression omnibus: Ncbi gene expression and hybridization array data repository. Nucleic Acids Research, 30 0 (1): 0 207--210, 2002

2002
[10]

B. Efron. Two modeling strategies for empirical bayes estimation. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 29 0 (2): 0 285, 2014

2014
[11]

B. Efron. Bayes, Oracle Bayes, and Empirical Bayes . Statistical Science, 2019. to appear

2019
[12]

Efron and C

B. Efron and C. Morris. Stein's estimation rule and its competitors—an empirical bayes approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68 0 (341): 0 117--130, 1973

1973
[13]

J. Fan, Y. Feng, and X. Tong. A road to classification in high dimensional space: the regularized optimal affine discriminant. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 74 0 (4): 0 745--771, 2012

2012
[14]

Feng and L

L. Feng and L. H. Dicker. Approximate nonparametric maximum likelihood for mixture models: A convex optimization approach to fitting arbitrary multivariate mixing distributions. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 2018

2018
[15]

Friedman, T

J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33 0 (1): 0 1, 2010

2010
[16]

L. Fu, W. Sun, and G. M. James. Nonparametric empirical bayes estimation on heterogeneous data. Technical report, University of Southern California, 2019

2019
[17]

C. R. Genovese, K. Roeder, and L. Wasserman. False discovery control with p-value weighting. Biometrika, 93 0 (3): 0 509--524, 2006

2006
[18]

Ghosal and A

S. Ghosal and A. W. Van Der Vaart. Entropies and rates of convergence for maximum likelihood and Bayes estimation for mixtures of normal densities . Annals of Statistics, 29 0 (5): 0 1233--1263, 2001

2001
[19]

Greenshtein and J

E. Greenshtein and J. Park. Application of non parametric empirical Bayes estimation to high dimensional classification . J. Mach. Learn. Res., 10: 0 1687--1704, 2009

2009
[20]

Greenshtein and Y

E. Greenshtein and Y. Ritov. Asymptotic efficiency of simple decisions for the compound decision problem. In Optimality: The Third Erich L. Lehmann Symposium, pages 266--275. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2009

2009
[21]

Gu and R

J. Gu and R. Koenker. Empirical bayesball remixed: Empirical bayes methods for longitudinal data. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 32 0 (3): 0 575--599, 2017

2017
[22]

Y. Hu, Q. Lu, W. Liu, Y. Zhang, M. Li, and H. Zhao. Joint modeling of genetically correlated diseases and functional annotations increases accuracy of polygenic risk prediction. PLoS genetics, 13 0 (6): 0 e1006836, 2017

2017
[23]

James and C

W. James and C. M. Stein. Estimation with quadratic loss. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, volume 1, pages 367--379. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1961

1961
[24]

Jiang, C.-H

W. Jiang, C.-H. Zhang, et al. General maximum likelihood empirical Bayes estimation of normal means . The Annals of Statistics, 37 0 (4): 0 1647--1684, 2009

2009
[25]

Jiang, C.-H

W. Jiang, C.-H. Zhang, et al. Empirical bayes in-season prediction of baseball batting averages. In Borrowing Strength: Theory Powering Applications--A Festschrift for Lawrence D. Brown, pages 263--273. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2010

2010
[26]

B.-Y. Jing, Z. Li, G. Pan, and W. Zhou. On sure-type double shrinkage estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111 0 (516): 0 1696--1704, 2016

2016
[27]

I. M. Johnstone. Gaussian estimation: Sequence and wavelet models. Technical report, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, 2017

2017
[28]

Kiefer and J

J. Kiefer and J. Wolfowitz. Consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator in the presence of infinitely many incidental parameters. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, pages 887--906, 1956

1956
[29]

R. Koenker. A gaussian compound decision bakeoff. Stat, 3 0 (1): 0 12--16, 2014

2014
[30]

Koenker and I

R. Koenker and I. Mizera. Convex optimization, shape constraints, compound decisions, and empirical bayes rules. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109 0 (506): 0 674--685, 2014

2014
[31]

Kou and J

S. Kou and J. J. Yang. Optimal shrinkage estimation in heteroscedastic hierarchical linear models. In Big and Complex Data Analysis, pages 249--284. Springer, 2017

2017
[32]

Koudstaal and F

M. Koudstaal and F. Yao. From multiple gaussian sequences to functional data and beyond: a stein estimation approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 80 0 (2): 0 319--342, 2018

2018
[33]

Martin, S

R. Martin, S. G. Walker, et al. Asymptotically minimax empirical bayes estimation of a sparse normal mean vector. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 8 0 (2): 0 2188--2206, 2014

2014
[34]

Y. Pan, Q. Mai, and X. Zhang. Tulip: A toolbox for linear discriminant analysis with penalties. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03469, 2019

1904 arXiv
[35]

J. K. Pickrell, T. Berisa, J. Z. Liu, L. S \'e gurel, J. Y. Tung, and D. A. Hinds. Detection and interpretation of shared genetic influences on 42 human traits. Nature Genetics, 48 0 (7): 0 709, 2016

2016
[36]

Ramdas, R

A. Ramdas, R. F. Barber, M. J. Wainwright, and M. I. Jordan. A unified treatment of multiple testing with prior knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06222, 2017

2017 arXiv
[37]

Richardson, G

S. Richardson, G. C. Tseng, and W. Sun. Statistical methods in integrative genomics. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 3: 0 181--209, 2016

2016
[38]

M. D. Ritchie, E. R. Holzinger, R. Li, S. A. Pendergrass, and D. Kim. Methods of integrating data to uncover genotype--phenotype interactions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16 0 (2): 0 85, 2015

2015
[39]

H. Robbins. Asymptotically subminimax solutions of compound decision problems. In Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pages 131--–148. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1951

1951
[40]

H. Robbins. The empirical bayes approach to statistical decision problems. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35: 0 1--20, 1964

1964
[41]

Saha and A

S. Saha and A. Guntuboyina. On the nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator for gaussian location mixture densities with application to gaussian denoising. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.02009, 2017

2017 arXiv
[42]

L. Shi, G. Campbell, W. D. Jones, F. Campagne, Z. Wen, S. J. Walker, Z. Su, T.-M. Chu, F. M. Goodsaid, L. Pusztai, et al. The microarray quality control (maqc)-ii study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nature Biotech...

2010
[43]

H. Y. Shpigler, M. C. Saul, F. Corona, L. Block, A. C. Ahmed, S. D. Zhao, and G. E. Robinson. Deep evolutionary conservation of autism-related genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 0 (36): 0 9653--9658, 2017

2017
[44]

G. K. Smyth. Limma: linear models for microarray data. In Bioinformatics and computational biology solutions using R and Bioconductor, pages 397--420. Springer, 2005

2005
[45]

C. Stein. Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. In Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, volume 1, pages 197--206. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1956

1956
[46]

C. M. Stein. Estimation of the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. The Annals of Statistics, 9: 0 1135--1151, 1981

1981
[47]

S. M. Stigler. The 1988 Neyman memorial lecture: a Galtonian perspective on shrinkage estimators . Statistical Science, pages 147--155, 1990

1988
[48]

Z. Tan. Steinized empirical bayes estimation for heteroscedastic data. Statistica Sinica, pages 1219--1248, 2016

2016
[49]

G. C. Tseng, D. Ghosh, and X. J. Zhou. Integrating Omics Data. Cambridge University Press, 2015

2015
[50]

A. W. van der Vaart and J. Wellner. Weak convergence and empirical processes: with applications to statistics. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 1996

1996
[51]

Y. Wang, J. G. Klijn, Y. Zhang, A. M. Sieuwerts, M. P. Look, F. Yang, D. Talantov, M. Timmermans, M. E. Meijer-van Gelder, J. Yu, et al. Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. The Lancet, 365 0 (9460): 0 671--679, 2005

2005
[52]

Weinstein, Z

A. Weinstein, Z. Ma, L. D. Brown, and C.-H. Zhang. Group-linear empirical bayes estimates for a heteroscedastic normal mean. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pages 1--13, 2018

2018
[53]

M. N. Wright and A. Ziegler. ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in c++ and r. Journal of Statistical Software, 77 0 (1): 0 1--17, 2017

2017
[54]

X. Xie, S. Kou, and L. D. Brown. SURE estimates for a heteroscedastic hierarchical model . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107 0 (500): 0 1465--1479, 2012

2012
[55]

X. Xie, S. C. Kou, and L. Brown. Optimal shrinkage estimation of mean parameters in family of distributions with quadratic variance. Annals of statistics, 44 0 (2): 0 564, 2016

2016
[56]

D. V. Zaykin and D. O. Kozbur. P-value based analysis for shared controls design in genome-wide association studies. Genetic epidemiology, 34 0 (7): 0 725--738, 2010

2010
[57]

C.-H. Zhang. Empirical Bayes and compound estimation of normal means . Statistica Sinica, 7 0 (1): 0 181--193, 1997

1997
[58]

C.-H. Zhang. Compound decision theory and empirical bayes methods. The Annals of Statistics, 31 0 (2): 0 379--390, 2003

2003
[59]

C.-H. Zhang. Generalized maximum likelihood estimation of normal mixture densities. Statistica Sinica, 19: 0 1297--1318, 2009

2009
[60]

Zhang and A

X. Zhang and A. Bhattacharya. Empirical bayes, sure and sparse normal mean models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05195, 2017

2017 arXiv
[61]

S. D. Zhao. Integrative genetic risk prediction using non-parametric empirical bayes classification. Biometrics, 73 0 (2): 0 582--592, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Banerjee, G

T. Banerjee, G. Mukherjee, and W. Sun. Adaptive sparse estimation with side information. Technical report, University of Southern California, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

L. D. Brown and E. Greenshtein. Nonparametric empirical bayes and compound decision approaches to estimation of a high-dimensional vector of normal means. The Annals of Statistics, pages 1685--1704, 2009

2009

[3] [3]

T. T. Cai. Minimax and adaptive inference in nonparametric function estimation. Statistical Science, pages 31--50, 2012

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Castillo, A

I. Castillo, A. van der Vaart, et al. Needles and straw in a haystack: Posterior concentration for possibly sparse sequences. The Annals of Statistics, 40 0 (4): 0 2069--2101, 2012

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Cohen, E

N. Cohen, E. Greenshtein, and Y. Ritov. Empirical bayes in the presence of explanatory variables. Statistica Sinica, pages 333--357, 2013

work page 2013

[6] [6]

L. H. Dicker and S. D. Zhao. High-dimensional classification via nonparametric empirical bayes and maximum likelihood inference. Biometrika, pages 21--34, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

D. L. Donoho and I. M. Johnstone. Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage. Journal of the american statistical association, 90 0 (432): 0 1200--1224, 1995

1995

[8] [8]

D. L. Donoho and J. M. Johnstone. Ideal spatial adaptation by wavelet shrinkage. biometrika, 81 0 (3): 0 425--455, 1994

work page 1994