Exploring the latent segmentation space for the assessment of multiple change-point models

Computational Statistics

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 2641-2678

  Guédon, Yann ^a  

^a UMR AGAP   (France)

Author keywords

Dynamic programming algorithm; Latent structure model; Multiple change point detection; Plant structure analysis; Smoothing algorithm

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888286649     PISSN: 09434062     EISSN: 16139658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00180-013-0422-9     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Auger IE, Lawrence CE (1989) Algorithms for the optimal identification of segment neighborhoods. Bull Math Biol 51: 39-54.
2. Braun JV, Müller H-G (1998) Statistical methods for DNA sequence segmentation. Stat Sci 13(2): 142-162.
3. Cappé O, Moulines E, Rydén T (2005) Inference in hidden Markov models. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York.
4. Chib S (1998) Estimation and comparison of multiple change-point models. J Econom 86: 221-241.
5. Dobigeon N, Tourneret J-Y, Scargle JD (2007) Joint segmentation of multivariate astronomical time series: Bayesian sampling with a hierarchical model. IEEE Trans Signal Process 55(2): 414-423.
6. Fearnhead P (2006) Exact and efficient Bayesian inference for multiple changepoint problems. Stat Comput 16(2): 203-213.
7. Girón J, Moreno E, Casella G (2007) Objective Bayesian analysis of multiple changepoints for linear models. In: Bernardo JM, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, West M (eds) Bayesian statistics 8. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1-27.
8. Green PJ (1995) Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika 82(4): 711-732.
9. Guédon Y (2003) Estimating hidden semi-Markov chains from discrete sequences. J Comput Graph Stat 12(3): 604-639.
10. Guédon Y (2007) Exploring the state sequence space for hidden Markov and semi-Markov chains. Comput Stat Data Anal 51(5): 2379-2409.
11. Guédon Y (2008) Exploring the segmentation space for the assessment of multiple change-point models. INRIA, Research report RR-6619.
12. Guédon Y, Barthélémy D, Caraglio Y, Costes E (2001) Pattern analysis in branching and axillary flowering sequences. J Theor Biol 212(4): 481-520.
13. Guédon Y, Caraglio Y, Heuret P, Lebarbier E, Meredieu C (2007) Analyzing growth components in trees. J Theor Biol 248(3): 418-447.
14. Hawkins DM (2001) Fitting multiple change-point models to data. Comput Stat Data Anal 37(3): 323-341.
15. Hawkins DM, Zamba KD (2005) Statistical process control for shifts in mean or variance using a changepoint formulation. Technometrics 47(2): 164-173.
16. Jackson B, Scargle JD, Barnes D, Arabhi S, Alt A, Gioumousis P, Gwin E, Sangtrakulcharoen P, Tan L, Tsai TT (2005) An algorithm for optimal partitioning of data on an interval. IEEE Signal Process Lett 12(2): 105-108.
17. Jarrett RG (1979) A note on the intervals between coal-mining disasters. Biometrika 66(1): 191-193.
18. Lavielle M (1998) Optimal segmentation of random processes. IEEE Trans Signal Process 46(5): 1365-1373.
19. Lavielle M (2005) Using penalized contrasts for the change-point problem. Signal Process 85(8): 1501-1510.
20. Lebarbier E (2005) Detecting multiple change-points in the mean of Gaussian process by model selection. Signal Process 85(4): 717-736.
21. Levinson SE (1986) Continuously variable duration hidden Markov models for automatic speech recognition. Comput Speech Lang 1: 29-45.
22. Liu JS, Lawrence CE (1999) Bayesian inference on biopolymer models. Bioinformatics 15: 38-52.
23. Óruanaidh JJK, Fitzgerald WJ (1996) Numerical Bayesian methods applied to signal processing. Springer, New York.
24. Picard F, Robin S, Lavielle M, Vaisse C, Daudin J-J (2005) A statistical approach for array CGH data analysis. BMC Bioinform 6(27).
25. Rigaill G, Lebarbier E, Robin S (2012) Exact posterior distributions and model selection criteria for multiple change-point detection problems. Stat Comput 22(4): 917-929.
26. Zhang NR, Siegmund DO (2007) A modified Bayes information criterion with applications to the analysis of comparative genomic hybridization data. Biometrics 63(1): 22-32.