title: Evaluating Model Misspecification in Independent Component Analysis.
abstract: Independent component analysis (ICA) is a popular blind source separation technique used in many scientific disciplines. Current ICA approaches have focused on developing efficient algorithms under specific ICA models, such as instantaneous or convolutive mixing conditions, intrinsically assuming temporal independence or autocorrelation of the sources. In practice, the true model is not known and different ICA algorithms can produce very different results. Although it is critical to choose an ICA model, there has not been enough research done on evaluating mixing models and assumptions, and how the associated algorithms may perform under different scenarios. In this paper, we investigate the performance of multiple ICA algorithms under various mixing conditions. We also propose a convolutive ICA algorithm for echoic mixing cases. Our simulation studies show that the performance of ICA algorithms is highly dependent on mixing conditions and temporal independence of the sources. Most instantaneous ICA algorithms fail to separate autocorrelated sources, while convolutive ICA algorithms depend highly on the model specification and approximation accuracy of unmixing filters.
authors: Department of Psychiatry and Biostatistics, Columbia University.
authors: Seonjoo
authors: S
authors: Lee
authors: Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University.
authors: Brian S
authors: BS
authors: Caffo
authors: Kennedy Krieger Institute.
authors: Balaji
authors: B
authors: Lakshmanan
authors: Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, The Henry M. Jackson Foundation.
authors: Dzung L
authors: DL
authors: Pham
keywords: Convolutive Mixing; Independent Component Analysis; Model Misspecification
references: Neural Comput. 1999 Nov 15;11(8):1875-83
references: 10578035
references: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2000 May;47(5):589-93
references: 10851802
references: Neural Netw. 2000 May-Jun;13(4-5):411-30
references: 10946390
references: IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004 Feb;23(2):137-52
references: 14964560
references: Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 May;116(5):1201-12
references: 15826863
references: Neuroimage. 2007 Feb 15;34(4):1443-9
references: 17188898
references: Neural Comput. 2007 Apr;19(4):934-55
references: 17348768
references: J Am Stat Assoc. 2011;106(495):1009-1024
references: 27524847
references: Neural Comput. 1995 Nov;7(6):1129-59
references: 7584893
references: Neural Comput. 1999 Feb 15;11(2):417-41
references: 9950738