Group Linear non-Gaussian Component Analysis with Applications to Neuroimaging

Yuxuan Zhao; David S. Matteson; Mary Beth Nebel; Stewart H. Mostofsky; Benjamin Risk

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2101.04809

Group Linear non-Gaussian Component Analysis with Applications to Neuroimaging

Yuxuan Zhao·David S. Matteson·Mary Beth Nebel·Stewart H. Mostofsky·Benjamin Risk

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Independent component analysis (ICA) is an unsupervised learning method popular in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Group ICA has been used to search for biomarkers in neurological disorders including autism spectrum disorder and dementia. However, current methods use a principal component analysis (PCA) step that may remove low-variance features. Linear non-Gaussian component analysis (LNGCA) enables simultaneous dimension reduction and feature estimation including low-variance features in single-subject fMRI. We present a group LNGCA model to extract group components shared by more than one subject and subject-specific components. To determine the total number of components in each subject, we propose a parametric resampling test that samples spatially correlated Gaussian noise to match the spatial dependence observed in data. In simulations, our estimated group components achieve higher accuracy compared to group ICA. We apply our method to a resting-state fMRI study on autism spectrum disorder in 342 children (252 typically developing, 90 with autism), where the group signals include resting-state networks. We find examples of group components that appear to exhibit different levels of temporal engagement in autism versus typically developing children, as revealed using group LNGCA. This novel approach to matrix decomposition is a promising direction for feature detection in neuroimaging.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Yuxuan Zhao, David S. Matteson, Mary Beth Nebel, Stewart H. Mostofsky, Benjamin Risk. 2021-01-13. Group Linear non-Gaussian Component Analysis with Applications to Neuroimaging. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04809

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

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↗