LGAug 13, 2025

Characterizing Evolution in Expectation-Maximization Estimates for Overspecified Mixed Linear Regression

arXiv:2508.10154v1h-index: 2
Originality Incremental advance
AI Analysis

This provides theoretical insights for researchers in machine learning and statistics dealing with mixture models, but it is incremental as it builds on existing EM analysis in overspecified settings.

The paper tackles the problem of model misspecification in overspecified two-component mixed linear regression by analyzing the Expectation-Maximization algorithm's convergence behavior, showing linear convergence in O(log(1/ε)) steps for unbalanced initial weights and sublinear convergence in O(ε^{-2}) steps for balanced ones, with statistical accuracies of O((d/n)^{1/2}) and O((d/n)^{1/4}) respectively.

Mixture models have attracted significant attention due to practical effectiveness and comprehensive theoretical foundations. A persisting challenge is model misspecification, which occurs when the model to be fitted has more mixture components than those in the data distribution. In this paper, we develop a theoretical understanding of the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm's behavior in the context of targeted model misspecification for overspecified two-component Mixed Linear Regression (2MLR) with unknown $d$-dimensional regression parameters and mixing weights. In Theorem 5.1 at the population level, with an unbalanced initial guess for mixing weights, we establish linear convergence of regression parameters in $O(\log(1/ε))$ steps. Conversely, with a balanced initial guess for mixing weights, we observe sublinear convergence in $O(ε^{-2})$ steps to achieve the $ε$-accuracy at Euclidean distance. In Theorem 6.1 at the finite-sample level, for mixtures with sufficiently unbalanced fixed mixing weights, we demonstrate a statistical accuracy of $O((d/n)^{1/2})$, whereas for those with sufficiently balanced fixed mixing weights, the accuracy is $O((d/n)^{1/4})$ given $n$ data samples. Furthermore, we underscore the connection between our population level and finite-sample level results: by setting the desired final accuracy $ε$ in Theorem 5.1 to match that in Theorem 6.1 at the finite-sample level, namely letting $ε= O((d/n)^{1/2})$ for sufficiently unbalanced fixed mixing weights and $ε= O((d/n)^{1/4})$ for sufficiently balanced fixed mixing weights, we intuitively derive iteration complexity bounds $O(\log (1/ε))=O(\log (n/d))$ and $O(ε^{-2})=O((n/d)^{1/2})$ at the finite-sample level for sufficiently unbalanced and balanced initial mixing weights. We further extend our analysis in overspecified setting to low SNR regime.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes