SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2007.05052

Penalized Estimation and Forecasting of Multiple Subject Intensive Longitudinal Data

Abstract

Intensive Longitudinal Data (ILD) is increasingly available to social and behavioral scientists. With this increased availability come new opportunities for modeling and predicting complex biological, behavioral, and physiological phenomena. Despite these new opportunities psychological researchers have not taken full advantage of promising opportunities inherent to this data, the potential to forecast psychological processes at the individual level. To address this gap in the literature we present a novel modeling framework that addresses a number of topical challenges and open questions in the psychological literature on modeling dynamic processes. First, how can we model and forecast ILD when the length of individual time series and the number of variables collected are roughly equivalent, or when time series lengths are shorter than what is typically required for time series analyses? Second, how can we best take advantage of the cross-sectional (between-person) information inherent to most ILD scenarios while acknowledging individuals differ both quantitatively (e.g. in parameter magnitude) and qualitatively (e.g. in structural dynamics)? Despite the acknowledged between-person heterogeneity in many psychological processes is it possible to leverage group-level information to support improved forecasting at the individual level? In the remainder of the manuscript, we attempt to address these and other pressing questions relevant to the forecasting of multiple-subject ILD.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Zachary F. Fisher, Younghoon Kim, Barbara Fredrickson, Vladas Pipiras. 2020-07-09. Penalized Estimation and Forecasting of Multiple Subject Intensive Longitudinal Data. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09825-7

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

stat.ME

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

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

stat.ME

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

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

stat.ME