Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Appl Stat. 2021 Sep 23;15(3):1386–1404. doi: 10.1214/20-aoas1435

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Comparison of estimated loading matrix 1 in simulation Case 2 with different choices of α0 and α where Qj0 ∼ MN(Ip, α0Ip, α0Ip) and U = αIp = V. (a) α = 10−4, α0 = 10−4, (b) α = 10−2, α0 = 10−4, (c) FBPFA with α0 = 10−4, (d) BMSFA with α0 = 10−4, (e) α = 10−4, α0 = 10−2, (f) α = 10−2, α0 = 10−2, (g) FBPFA with α0 = 10−2, (h) for BMSFA with α0 = 10−2. True loading matrices are plotted twice in columns 1 for easier comparison with other images.