Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jan 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Comput Graph Stat. 2016 Nov 10;25(4):1272–1296. doi: 10.1080/10618600.2016.1164533

Table 6.1.

Quantitative comparison between F-APISTA and PCDA. We see that F-APISTA and PCDA attain similar timing results. But PCDA achieves worse statistical performance than F-APISTA in both support recovery and parameter estimation.

Method ‖θ̂−θ*2 ‖θ̂𝒮0 ‖θ̂𝒮c0 Correct Selection Timing
F-APISTA 0.8001(0.9089) 2.801(0.5123) 0.890(2.112) 667/1000 0.0181(0.0025)
PCDA 1.1275(1.2539) 2.655(0.7051) 1.644(3.016) 517/1000 0.0195(0.0021)