# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

November  2020, 3(4): 263-277. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2020010

## Modeling interactive components by coordinate kernel polynomial models

 1 Department of Applied Mathematics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China 2 Division of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 3 Department of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA

* Corresponding author: Xin Guo

Received  October 2019 Published  June 2020

Fund Project: The work described in this paper is partially supported by FRCAC of Middle Tennessee State University, and is partially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. PolyU 25301115). All the three authors contributed equally to the paper

We proposed the use of coordinate kernel polynomials in kernel regression. This new approach, called coordinate kernel polynomial regression, can simultaneously identify active variables and effective interactive components. Reparametrization refinement is found critical to improve the modeling accuracy and prediction power. The post-training component selection allows one to identify effective interactive components. Generalization error bounds are used to explain the effectiveness of the algorithm from a learning theory perspective and simulation studies are used to show its empirical effectiveness.

Citation: Xin Guo, Lexin Li, Qiang Wu. Modeling interactive components by coordinate kernel polynomial models. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2020, 3 (4) : 263-277. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2020010
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Variable selection accuracy and average MSE for Example 1
 Algorithm TPR($x_1$) TPR($x_2$) FPR MSE CKPR-L 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.008 (0.000) CKPR-G 1.00 1.00 0.011 0.109 (0.015) LASSO 1.00 0.18 0.040 1.129 (0.015) COSSO 0.90 0.02 0.020 10.879 (8.345) SR-SIR (AIC) 1.00 0.89 0.460 - SR-SIR (BIC) 1.00 0.85 0.181 - SR-SIR (RIC) 1.00 0.75 0.053 -
 Algorithm TPR($x_1$) TPR($x_2$) FPR MSE CKPR-L 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.008 (0.000) CKPR-G 1.00 1.00 0.011 0.109 (0.015) LASSO 1.00 0.18 0.040 1.129 (0.015) COSSO 0.90 0.02 0.020 10.879 (8.345) SR-SIR (AIC) 1.00 0.89 0.460 - SR-SIR (BIC) 1.00 0.85 0.181 - SR-SIR (RIC) 1.00 0.75 0.053 -
Average and standard error of MSEs for Example 2
 $m=100$ $m=200$ $m=400$ CKPR-G 0.119 (0.003) 0.054 (0.001) 0.025 (0.0004) COSSO(GCV) 0.358 (0.009) 0.100 (0.003) 0.045 (0.001) COSSO(5CV) 0.378 (0.005) 0.094 (0.004) 0.043 (0.001) MARS 0.239 (0.008) 0.109 (0.003) 0.084 (0.001)
 $m=100$ $m=200$ $m=400$ CKPR-G 0.119 (0.003) 0.054 (0.001) 0.025 (0.0004) COSSO(GCV) 0.358 (0.009) 0.100 (0.003) 0.045 (0.001) COSSO(5CV) 0.378 (0.005) 0.094 (0.004) 0.043 (0.001) MARS 0.239 (0.008) 0.109 (0.003) 0.084 (0.001)
RMSE on three UCI data sets
 Ionosphere Sonar MR Wisc. BC $n$ 351 208 683 $p$ 33 60 9 CKPR-L $0.64 (0.04)$ $0.75 (0.06)$ $0.34 (0.02)$ CKPR-G $0.54 (0.03)$ $0.77 (0.06)$ $0.34 (0.02)$ Best in [5] $0.60 (0.05)$ $0.80 (0.04)$ $0.70 (0.01)$
 Ionosphere Sonar MR Wisc. BC $n$ 351 208 683 $p$ 33 60 9 CKPR-L $0.64 (0.04)$ $0.75 (0.06)$ $0.34 (0.02)$ CKPR-G $0.54 (0.03)$ $0.77 (0.06)$ $0.34 (0.02)$ Best in [5] $0.60 (0.05)$ $0.80 (0.04)$ $0.70 (0.01)$
 [1] Juliang Zhang, Jian Chen. Information sharing in a make-to-stock supply chain. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (4) : 1169-1189. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1169 [2] Francisco Braun, Jaume Llibre, Ana Cristina Mereu. Isochronicity for trivial quintic and septic planar polynomial Hamiltonian systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2016, 36 (10) : 5245-5255. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2016029 [3] Jérôme Ducoat, Frédérique Oggier. On skew polynomial codes and lattices from quotients of cyclic division algebras. Advances in Mathematics of Communications, 2016, 10 (1) : 79-94. doi: 10.3934/amc.2016.10.79 [4] Armin Lechleiter, Tobias Rienmüller. Factorization method for the inverse Stokes problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (4) : 1271-1293. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1271 [5] Qiang Guo, Dong Liang. An adaptive wavelet method and its analysis for parabolic equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (2) : 327-345. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.327 [6] Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong. An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2017, 2 (1) : 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006 [7] Deren Han, Zehui Jia, Yongzhong Song, David Z. W. Wang. An efficient projection method for nonlinear inverse problems with sparsity constraints. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (3) : 689-709. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016017 [8] Boris Kramer, John R. Singler. A POD projection method for large-scale algebraic Riccati equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2016, 6 (4) : 413-435. doi: 10.3934/naco.2016018 [9] Petra Csomós, Hermann Mena. Fourier-splitting method for solving hyperbolic LQR problems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (1) : 17-46. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018002 [10] Christina Surulescu, Nicolae Surulescu. Modeling and simulation of some cell dispersion problems by a nonparametric method. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (2) : 263-277. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.263 [11] Jiangxing Wang. Convergence analysis of an accurate and efficient method for nonlinear Maxwell's equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2429-2440. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020185 [12] Jan Prüss, Laurent Pujo-Menjouet, G.F. Webb, Rico Zacher. Analysis of a model for the dynamics of prions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2006, 6 (1) : 225-235. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2006.6.225 [13] Johannes Kellendonk, Lorenzo Sadun. Conjugacies of model sets. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2017, 37 (7) : 3805-3830. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2017161 [14] Min Li. A three term Polak-Ribière-Polyak conjugate gradient method close to the memoryless BFGS quasi-Newton method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 245-260. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018149 [15] Didier Bresch, Thierry Colin, Emmanuel Grenier, Benjamin Ribba, Olivier Saut. A viscoelastic model for avascular tumor growth. Conference Publications, 2009, 2009 (Special) : 101-108. doi: 10.3934/proc.2009.2009.101 [16] Ondrej Budáč, Michael Herrmann, Barbara Niethammer, Andrej Spielmann. On a model for mass aggregation with maximal size. Kinetic & Related Models, 2011, 4 (2) : 427-439. doi: 10.3934/krm.2011.4.427 [17] Manfred Einsiedler, Elon Lindenstrauss. On measures invariant under diagonalizable actions: the Rank-One case and the general Low-Entropy method. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2008, 2 (1) : 83-128. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2008.2.83 [18] Xiaomao Deng, Xiao-Chuan Cai, Jun Zou. A parallel space-time domain decomposition method for unsteady source inversion problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (4) : 1069-1091. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.1069 [19] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [20] Mohsen Abdolhosseinzadeh, Mir Mohammad Alipour. Design of experiment for tuning parameters of an ant colony optimization method for the constrained shortest Hamiltonian path problem in the grid networks. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (2) : 321-332. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020028

Impact Factor:

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables