The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical guarantees for the EM algorithm: From population to sample-based analysis
Open accessAbstract
The EM algorithm is a widely used tool in maximum-likelihood estimation in incomplete data problems. Existing theoretical work has focused on conditions under which the iterates or likelihood values converge, and the associated rates of convergence. Such guarantees do not distinguish whether the ultimate fixed point is a near global optimum or a bad local optimum of the sample likelihood, nor do they relate the obtained fixed point to the global optima of the idealized population likelihood (obtained in the limit of infinite data). This paper develops a theoretical framework for quantifying when and how quickly EM-type iterates converge to a small neighborhood of a given global optimum of the population likelihood. For correctly specified models, such a characterization yields rigorous guarantees on the performance of certain two-stage estimators in which a suitable initial pilot estimator is refined with iterations of the EM algorithm. Our analysis is divided into two parts: a treatment of the EM and first-order EM algorithms at the population level, followed by results that apply to these algorithms on a finite set of samples. Our conditions allow for a characterization of the region of convergence of EM-type iterates to a given population fixed point, that is, the region of the parameter space over which convergence is guaranteed to a point within a small neighborhood of the specified population fixed point. We verify our conditions and give tight characterizations of the region of convergence for three canonical problems of interest: symmetric mixture of two Gaussians, symmetric mixture of two regressions and linear regression with covariates missing completely at random.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A View of the Em Algorithm that Justifies Incremental, Sparse, and other Variants
Neal, R. M., & Hinton, G. E. (1998) · Learning in Graphical Models · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5014-9_12 · Cited by 2,187
Tensor decompositions for learning latent variable models
(2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.5555/2627435.2697055 · Cited by 779
Cited by
A Survey of Optimization Methods From a Machine Learning Perspective
Sun, S., Cao, Z., Zhu, H., & Zhao, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2019.2950779 · Cited by 789
Non-convex Optimization for Machine Learning
Jain, P., & Kar, P. (2017) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000058 · Cited by 364
Complete Dictionary Recovery Over the Sphere I: Overview and the Geometric Picture
Sun, J., Qu, Q., & Wright, J. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Information Theory · doi:10.1109/tit.2016.2632162 · Cited by 213
Sublinear regret for learning POMDPs
Xiong, Y., Chen, N., Gao, X., & Zhou, X. (2022) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/poms.13778 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Balakrishnan, S., Wainwright, M. J., & Yu, B.
- Venue
- The Annals of Statistics
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 2017-02-01
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-120
- ISSN
- 0090-5364 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2962737134
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical guarantees for the EM algorithm: From population to sample-based analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/16-aos1435
- The paper
- Balakrishnan, S., Wainwright, M. J., & Yu, B. (2017). Statistical guarantees for the EM algorithm: From population to sample-based analysis. The Annals of Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1214/16-aos1435
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.