-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 201
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Constraining AR-HMM emission parameters #158
Comments
Good question! I don’t think you can do that with the built in code. You could make a custom observation class and only include the updates for the other parameters, via a custom M step. It should end up looking pretty similar to the existing AR observations class. Does that make sense? |
Thanks for the rapid response! Yes, this makes sense. |
First let me just make sure I understand the model you'd like to fit. I think you're describing an autoregressive observation model, where the free parameters are If so, I think you could equivalently define an HMM on the residuals This is also called a "switching linear regression model." I don't think we have such an observation model built into SSM, but we do have one in dynamax (see here) |
Yes, that should work well. Namely, I know the feedforward matrix transition matrix of the system dynamics "A". What I am trying to do is parse behavioral states by assuming they only differ by projection into a control subspace "B". Side question, then: in dynamax, are there options for computing the HMM with multiple emission types? For example, a gaussian for |
Assuming an AR-HMM, I want to know if it's possible to constrain the AR model parameters. Specifically, is it possible to set the 'A' matrix to fixed parameters and only estimate parameters for the input matrix (labeled as 'V' in the ssm package)?
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: