Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Testing nonparametric shape restrictions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single transformation makes shape-restriction tests distribution-free, so standard Brownian-motion critical values apply across many shape classes.

desk verdict Worth a serious referee for the unified linear-constraint framework, but the nonlinear extension and the active-set handling are promises, not proofs. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01675 v2 pith:XSPXRF7B submitted 2019-09-04 stat.ME econ.EMmath.STstat.TH

Tatiana Komarova , Javier Hidalgo This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEecon.EMmath.STstat.TH MSC 62G0862G1062G20
keywords shaperestrictionsnonparametricregressionKhmaladzetransformationpartialsumprocessB-splinesbootstrapmonotonicityconvexity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes a unified test for whether a nonparametric regression function satisfies a shape restriction such as monotonicity, convexity, U-shape, S-shape, symmetry, log-convexity, r-convexity, or MN-convexity. The test applies Khmaladze's martingale transformation to the partial sum process of residuals from a shape-constrained B-spline fit. The transformed process converges weakly to a functional of standard Brownian motion, making the test asymptotically pivotal: the same Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramér–von Mises, and Anderson–Darling critical values work for every shape in the class. Because asymptotic critical values can be poor in finite samples, the paper also proves that a simple bootstrap is asymptotically valid and provides Monte Carlo evidence that it restores nominal size.

What carries the argument

The central object is Khmaladze's martingale transformation $T$ applied to the partial sum empirical process $K_n(x) = n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \hat{u}_i I(x_i < x)$. The transformation projects the process onto the orthogonal complement of the space spanned by the B-spline basis (with binding constraints incorporated), so that the estimated parameters drop out and the process becomes asymptotically a Brownian motion. The B-spline basis is chosen because shape constraints translate into simple inequalities on coefficients, and because the transformation requires a basis with local support.

What would settle it

Run a simulation with a null model where the constrained spline fit has two binding constraints at the same point (e.g., both monotonicity and convexity are tight), using the paper's bootstrap and the asymptotic critical values, and compare the empirical rejection rate to the nominal level; a systematic size distortion would contradict the claim that the generalized multiple-surface case is straightforward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the null hypothesis that the regression function $m$ belongs to a shape class $\mathcal{M}_0$ satisfying Condition C0, the Khmaladze-transformed partial sum process $\widetilde{M}_n(x)$ converges weakly to $\sigma_u B(F_X(x))$, a standard Brownian motion functional. Consequently, critical values for Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramér–von Mises, and Anderson–Darling statistics are available without simulation, and the proposed bootstrap reproduces the null distribution asymptotically. The class includes monotonicity, convexity/concavity, U- and S-shapes with known or estimated switch points, symmetry, quasi-convexity, r-convexity, and MN-convexity; the transformation automatically removes the estimation effect that otherwise makes the limit non-Gaussian at the boundary of the shape class.

Load-bearing premise

For nonlinear shape constraints, the proof assumes the constrained estimator lies on a single smooth boundary surface described by an implicit function, and that the set of binding constraints is correctly incorporated; if several constraints bind at once or the active set is misspecified, the pivotal result may fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single table of critical values (KS, CvM, AD) applies to tests of monotonicity, convexity, log-convexity, U-shape, S-shape, symmetry, quasi-convexity, r-convexity, and MN-convexity, as well as simultaneous constraints.
  • The bootstrap is asymptotically valid and corrects finite-sample size distortions, as documented in Monte Carlo experiments for sample sizes around 1000.
  • The test has non-trivial power against alternatives converging to the null at the parametric $n^{-1/2}$ rate, provided the binding constraints are correctly embedded in the transformation.
  • Because the implementation reduces to recursive least squares with no bandwidth choice, the procedure is computationally simple and does not require tuning parameters beyond the spline knot placement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The pivotal limit suggests that the same transformation could yield distribution-free tests for shape constraints in other settings, such as quantile regression or partial linear models, where partial sum processes arise.
  • The dependence on the correct active set implies that data-driven selection of binding constraints could be a source of size distortion in small samples; a diagnostic that checks stability of the result across different active sets would be a useful practical check.
  • The rate condition $L^2/n + n/L^4 = o(1)$ leaves room for adaptive choice of knots; one could envision a data-driven $L$ that minimizes a bootstrap estimate of size or power.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a test for a general class of nonparametric shape restrictions on a regression function, including monotonicity, convexity, U-shape, S-shape, symmetry, quasi-convexity, log-convexity, r-convexity, and MN-convexity. The method approximates the regression function with B-splines, expresses the null hypothesis as constraints on the spline coefficients, and applies a Khmaladze-type transformation to the partial sum empirical process. The authors claim that, under H0, the transformed process converges weakly to sigma_u B(F_X(x)), so that Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises, and Anderson-Darling tests become asymptotically pivotal. A residual bootstrap is also proposed and claimed to be asymptotically valid. The paper includes Monte Carlo simulations and two empirical applications.

Significance. If the main theorem were fully established, this would be a valuable unified framework for testing a wide range of shape restrictions, with a pivotal asymptotic distribution that does not depend on the particular constraint class. The paper clearly demonstrates how many shape restrictions can be encoded as linear or nonlinear constraints on B-spline coefficients, and the bootstrap algorithm is straightforward to implement. However, the central proof has a load-bearing gap: the Khmaladze transformation is defined using a data-dependent active set of binding constraints, and the proof that the estimation error term vanishes requires that the estimated active set coincide with the true one, which is never established. The nonlinear extension is also asserted rather than proved for multiple binding surfaces. These issues prevent the main result from being accepted as stated, despite the evident promise of the approach.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Theorem 2 and its proof (Section 7.2); Lemma 1 (Appendix B)] The proof of Theorem 2 eliminates the contribution of P_i'(hat b - beta) by invoking Lemma 1, but Lemma 1 only annihilates linear combinations of the B-spline basis actually used in the transformation. In Section 3.1 the basis is redefined after estimation according to the constraints that 'proved to be binding.' With a data-dependent active set, hat b - beta lies in the column space of the reduced basis only if the estimated binding pattern equals the true one. No consistency of the active set is established, and for boundary nulls such as m(x)=1 under monotonicity the true active set has positive dimension while the finite-sample active set is random and typically different. Consequently, the claimed convergence of ~M_n(x) to sigma_u B(F_X(x)) is not proven for boundary nulls.
  2. [Section 3.2, last paragraph] The generalization from a single binding surface to multiple active surfaces is asserted with the sentence 'The rest of the methodology and the asymptotic result would remain the same as above,' without a proof. This is not a cosmetic omission: the quadratic constraints in Examples 3 and 4, e.g. the system in (2.8), naturally bind at several knots simultaneously, so the single-surface case is not representative. The proof of Theorem 3 also relies on an implicit-function representation beta_l0 = h(beta_-l0) and assumes the Hessian of h has finite norm, but this bounded-Hessian condition is not stated among the maintained assumptions.
  3. [Section 4, Theorem 4 and its proof (Section 7.5)] The bootstrap validity proof uses Lemma 1 in exactly the same way as the proof of Theorem 2; in particular, the argument that sup_x |~M*_n(x) - M*_n(x)| = o_p*(1) rests on the identity hat u*_i - hat u_i = P_i'(hat b* - hat b) and the cancellation of that term by Lemma 1. Since the active-set issue already undermines Theorem 2, bootstrap validity for the nonlinear constrained case and for boundary nulls with estimated active sets is equally unsupported. A separate treatment covering data-dependent active sets is needed before Theorem 4 can be accepted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The wording 'its asymptotic distribution is a functional of the standard Brownian motion' is imprecise; the transformed process itself converges to sigma_u B(F_X(x)), and it is the test statistics such as KS, CvM, and AD that are functionals of that process.
  2. [Title page] The 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification codes (05C38, 15A15, 05A15, 15A18) appear to be copied from another paper and are unrelated to the statistical content; appropriate codes from statistics or econometrics should be used.
  3. [Section 5.1, Scenarios 1, 2, and 5] All null scenarios used in the Monte Carlo experiment are strictly interior to the shape class (e.g., m(x)=x^(13/4) is strictly increasing, the log-convex function exp(x^2) is strictly log-convex). None of the simulations exercises a boundary null such as a constant function under monotonicity, which is precisely the case where the active-set issue arises. Adding such a scenario would help assess the practical impact of the theoretical gap.
  4. [Section 3.3] The statement that the test 'requires no more than recursive least squares' may be overstated: implementation also requires recomputing the active set and updating the generalized inverse at each step, and for nonlinear constraints the optimization can be substantially more involved.
  5. [Lemma 2 (Appendix B)] The stated bound E||~P_i||^s = O(L^{s/2} + L n^{(s/2-1)ς}) does not match the proof: equation (8.3) gives O(n^{(s/2-1)ς} + L^{s/2-1}), and the subsequent lines also suggest the L^{s/2-1} order. Please check whether the stated order is correct or whether the proof is missing a factor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Brownian-motion limit is derived from the transformation design and CLT; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Theorem 2 and Corollary 1, is that the Khmaladze-transformed partial sum process converges weakly to sigma_u B(F_X(x)). The transformation in (3.5) is explicitly constructed to satisfy condition (3.1)(ii), n^{1/2}(T P_L)(x)=0, and Lemma 1 verifies this annihilation property for any linear combination of B-splines. This is a mathematical identity by construction, but it is not circular: the weak convergence of the transformed error process M_n to Brownian motion is proved in Theorem 1 using a martingale central limit theorem under Conditions C1-C3, and Theorem 2 shows that replacing u_i by estimated residuals changes the process by op(1). The limiting distribution is not assumed or fitted; no critical values are calibrated to data, and the bootstrap validity in Theorem 4 is proved theoretically rather than imposed. The only self-citation is Hidalgo (2005), used for auxiliary nonparametric mode or break estimation in Example 2, and it is not load-bearing. The active-set consistency issue identified in the skeptic headline is a proof gap: the paper states that binding constraints 'have to be incorporated' in the transformation and then says 'we shall make no distinction among various cases of binding constraints,' without proving that the data-dependent active set equals the true one. That is an unproven technical step, not a circular reduction, because the claim is not equivalent to its own input or to a fitted value; it would fail from a missing consistency argument, not from the conclusion being assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on standard regularity conditions (C1-C3) and the approximability assumption C0. No invented entities or fitted constants are introduced to make the results work. The nonlinear-constraint extension rests on an additional regularity assumption (implicit function representation of active constraints) that is not fully justified.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of B-spline knots L' = varies by application (e.g., 6, 9, 12, 19 in simulations)
    User-selected tuning parameter; theory holds for any L satisfying Condition C3 (L^2/n + n/L^4 -> 0). Not fitted to data for the derivation.
  • P-spline penalty parameter = chosen by ordinary cross-validation in simulations and applications
    Only used in the P-spline variant; the asymptotic theory is developed for B-splines, and the paper does not provide a full theoretical treatment for the penalized case.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Condition C0: M0 is approximable in Hausdorff distance by B-spline coefficient constraint sets S_{q,L}
    This is the bridge between the infinite-dimensional shape class and finite-dimensional coefficient constraints. It is assumed, not derived, and for examples such as quasi-convexity with triplet constraints it is not explicitly verified.
  • domain assumption Condition C1: iid observations, E[u_i|x_i]=0, E[u_i^2|x_i]=sigma_u^2, finite fourth moment, density bounded away from zero
    Standard nonparametric regression assumptions; stated in Section 2.2. The paper notes heteroscedasticity can be allowed but does not develop the theory.
  • domain assumption Condition C2: m is three times continuously differentiable
    Used to bound approximation bias by O(L^{-3}) via Agarwal and Studden (1980). Could be weakened to Holder second derivatives, but then the rate condition changes.
  • domain assumption Condition C3: L^2/n + n/L^4 = o(1)
    Balances bias and variance in B-spline series estimation.
  • ad hoc to paper For nonlinear constraints, the active boundary can be represented locally as beta_l0 = h(beta_{-l0}) with bounded Hessian
    Invoked in Section 3.2 for Theorem 3. The proof assumes a single binding smooth surface. Generalization to multiple binding surfaces is stated but not proved, and consistency of the active set is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing nonparametric shape restrictions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSPXRF7B

@misc{pith2026190901675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing nonparametric shape restrictions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSPXRF7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01675}
}
abstract

We describe and examine a test for a general class of shape constraints, such as constraints on the signs of derivatives, U-(S-)shape, symmetry, quasi-convexity, log-convexity, $r$-convexity, among others, in a nonparametric framework using partial sums empirical processes. We show that, after a suitable transformation, its asymptotic distribution is a functional of the standard Brownian motion, so that critical values are available. However, due to the possible poor approximation of the asymptotic critical values to the finite sample ones, we also describe a valid bootstrap algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01675 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the regression function in Scenario 3. The power of monotonicity tests based on this regression function is considered in [42] and a similar regression function is considered in [48]. Note that [42] considers smaller sample sizes and also smaller standard deviation of noise with σ = 0.1. Scenario 4 (analysis of power of the test). The regression function m(x) = x + 0.415 exp(−ax2 ), a > 0. and depicted in [… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the regression function in Scenario 4. The left-hand side graph is for a = 50 and the right-hand side graph is for a = 20. The power of monotonicity tests based on this regression function is examined in [42] and a similar regression function was considered in [11]. Note that [42] uses smaller sample sizes and also only a = 50 and σ = 0.1 to analyze power implications. Scenario 5 (test for log-convexity). We… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. is a scatter plot of the logarithm of patient revenue and the logarithm of administrative expenses with the fitted curve obtained using cubic B-splines with L 0 + 1 = 5 uniform knots in the range of values of the log of patient revenue. The fitted cure is obtained under the monotonicity restriction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Energy consumption data. Plot of temperature and energy consumption and the constrained fit (under U-shape with the switch at 17.6 ◦ ) using cubic B-spline with 5 uniform knots on each subinterval of temperature values. On the left-hand side the fitted curve is con￾tin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Jiang, W

    Abrevaya, J. and Jiang, W. (2005). A Nonparametric Approach to Measuring and Testing Curvature, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 23, 1-19

    2005

  2. [2]

    and Studden, W.J

    Agarwal, G.G. and Studden, W.J. (1980). Asymptotic Integrated Mean Square Error Using Least Squares and Bias Minimizing Splines, The Annals of Statistics , 6, 1307-1325

    1980

  3. [3]

    and Vuorinen, M

    Anderson, G.D., Vamanamurthy, M.K. and Vuorinen, M. (2007). Generalized convexity and inequalities, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 335, 12941308

    2007

  4. [4]

    and Renault, R

    Anderson S.P. and Renault, R. (2003). Efficiency and surplus bounds in Cournot compe- tition, Journal of Economic Theory , 113, 253-264

    2003

  5. [5]

    Andrews, D.W.K. (1997). A Conditional Kolmogorov Test, Econometrica, 65, 1097-1128

    1997

  6. [6]

    Avriel, M. (1972). r-Convex functions, Mathematical Programming, 2, 309-323

    1972

  7. [7]

    and Laurent, B

    Baraud, Y., Huet, S. and Laurent, B. (2005). Testing Convex Hypotheses on the Mean of a Gaussian Vector. Application to Testing Qualitative Hypotheses on a Regression Function, The Annals of Statistics , 33, 214-257

    2005

  8. [8]

    Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of probability measures. Wiley, New York

    1968

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    and Dette, H

    Birke, M. and Dette, H. (2007). Estimating a Convex Function in Nonparametric Regres- sion, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 34, 384-404

    2007

  2. [10]

    Bollaerts, K., Eilers, P.H. C. and van Mechelen, I. (2006). Simple and multiple P- splines regression with shape constraints, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59, 451-469

    2006

  3. [11]

    and Gijbels, I

    Bowman, A.W., Jones, M.C. and Gijbels, I. (1998). Testing monotonicity of regression, Journal of Computation and Graphic Statistics , 7, 489-500

    1998

  4. [12]

    and Evans, J.M

    Brown, R.L., Durbin, J. and Evans, J.M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time (with discussion), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 37, 149-192

    1975

  5. [13]

    Brunk, H. D. (1955). Maximum likelihood estimates of monotone parameters, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 26, 607-616

    1955

  6. [14]

    and Baldwin, L.A

    Calabrese, E.J. and Baldwin, L.A. (2001). Hormesis: U-shaped Dose Responses and Their Centrality in Toxicology, Trends Pharmacol Sci., (6), 285-291

    2001

  7. [15]

    Caplin, A., Nalebuff, B. (1991a). Aggregation and imperfect competition: on the existence of equilibrium, Econometrica, 59, 25-59

    1991

  8. [16]

    Caplin, A., Nalebuff, B. (1991b). Aggregation and social choice: a mean voter theorem, Econometrica, 59, 1-23

    1991

  9. [17]

    Large Sample Sieve Estimation of Semi-Nonparametric Models, chapter 76 in Handbook of Econometrics, 6B , Elsevier

    Chen, X.(2007). Large Sample Sieve Estimation of Semi-Nonparametric Models, chapter 76 in Handbook of Econometrics, 6B , Elsevier

    2007

  10. [18]

    Chen, X., and Christensen, J.D. (2015). Optimal uniform convergence rates and asymp- totic normality for series estimators under weak dependence and weak conditions, Journal of Econometrics, 188, 447-465

    2015

  11. [19]

    and Galichon, A

    Chernozhukov, V., Fern ´andez-Val, I. and Galichon, A. (2009). Improving point and interval estimators of monotone functions by rearrangement, Biometrika, 96, 559-575

    2009

  12. [20]

    Chetverikov, D. (2019). Testing regression monotonicity in econometric models, Economet- ric Theory, 35 (4) , 729-776

    2019

  13. [21]

    and Opsomer, J.D

    Claeskens, G., Krivobokova, T. and Opsomer, J.D. (2009). Asymptotic properties of penalized spline estimators, Biometrika, 96, 529-544

    2009

  14. [22]

    andPoikolainen, K

    Corrao, G., Rubbiati, L., Bagnardi, V., Zamboon, A. andPoikolainen, K. (2000). Al- cohol and coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis. , Addiction, 95, 1505-1523

    2000

  15. [23]

    Cowan, S. (2012). Third-degree price discrimination and consumer surplus, Journal of Industrial Economics, 60, 333-345

    2012

  16. [24]

    and Lev, B

    Das, S. and Lev, B. (1994). Nonlinearity in the returns-earnings relation nonlinearity: Tests of Alternative Specifications and Explanations, Contemporary Accounting research, 11(1),353-379

    1994

  17. [25]

    De Boor, C. (1978). A Practical Guide to Splines . Springer, Berlin

    1978

  18. [26]

    A., and Hidalgo, J

    Delgado, M. A., and Hidalgo, J. (2000). Nonparametric inference on structural breaks, Journal of Econometrics , 96, 113-144. TESTING NONPARAMETRIC SHAPE RESTRICTIONS 49

    2000

  19. [27]

    and Neumayer, N

    Dette, H., Hoderlein, S. and Neumayer, N. (2016). Testing Multivariate Economic Re- strictions Using Quantiles: The Example of Slutzky Negative Semidefiniteness, Journal of Econometrics, 191 (1) , 129-144

    2016

  20. [28]

    and Pilz, K.F

    Dette, H., Neumeyer, N. and Pilz, K.F. (2006). A simple nonparametric estimator of a strictly monotone regression function, Bernoulli, 12 (3) , 469-490

    2006

  21. [29]

    and Thomas-Agnan, C

    Diack, C. and Thomas-Agnan, C. (1998). A nonparametric test of the non-Convexity of regression, Journal of Nonparametric Statistics , 9, 335-362

    1998

  22. [30]

    Dierckx, P. (1980). Algorithm 42. An algorithm for cubic spline fitting with convexity con- straints, Computing, 24, 349-371

    1980

  23. [31]

    Dierckx, P. (1993). Curve and surface fitting with splines . Oxford: Clarendon

    1993

  24. [32]

    and Spokoiny, V.G

    D¨umbgen, L. and Spokoiny, V.G. (2001). Multiscale Testing of Qualitative Hypotheses, The Annals of Statistics , 29, 124-152

    2001

  25. [33]

    Durbin, J. (1973). Distribution Theory for Tests Based on the Sample Distribution Function. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematic, Philadelphia

    1973

  26. [34]

    Eddy, W.F. (1980). Optimum kernel estimators of the mode, The Annals of Statistics , 8, 870-882

    1980

  27. [35]

    Eddy, W.F. (1982). The asymptotic distributions of kernel estimators of the mode, Proba- bility Theory and Related Fields , 59, 279-290

    1982

  28. [36]

    Eilers, P.H. C. and Marx, B.D. (1996). Flexible Smoothing with B-splines and Penalties, Statistical Science, 11, 89-102

    1996

  29. [37]

    Ewerhart, C. (2014). Cournot games with biconcave demand, Games and Economic Be- havior, 85, 37-47

    2014

  30. [38]

    Farouki, R.T. (2012). The Bernstein polynomial basis: a centennial retrospective, Comput. Aided Geom. Des., 29(6), 379-419

    2012

  31. [39]

    and Tse, S.Y

    Freeman, R.N. and Tse, S.Y. (1992). A Nonlinear Model of Security Price Responses to Unexpected Earnings, Journal of AccountingResearch, 30(2), 185-209

    1992

  32. [40]

    and Tibshirani, R.J

    Friedman, J.H. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1984). The monotone smoothing of scatterplots, Technometrics, 26, 243-250

    1984

  33. [41]

    and White, H

    Giacomini, R., Politis, D.N. and White, H. (2013). A warp-speed method for conducting Monte Carlo experiments involving bootstrap estimators, Econometric Theory, 29, 567-589

    2013

  34. [42]

    and van der Vaart, A

    Ghosal, S., Sen, A. and van der Vaart, A. (2000). Testing monotonicity of regression, The Annals of Statistics , 28, 1054-1082

    2000

  35. [43]

    Goldin C. (1995). The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function in Economic Development and Economic History. In: Schultz TP Investment in Women’s Human Capital and Economic Development. University of Chicago Press; pp. 61-90

    1995

  36. [44]

    and Rosenblatt, M

    Grenander, U. and Rosenblatt, M. (1957). Statistical Analysis of Stationary Time Series, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm

    1957

  37. [45]

    and Manovski, I

    Groes, F., Kircher, P. and Manovski, I. (2015). The U-Shapes of Occupational Mobility, , Review of Economic Studies ,82(2), 659–692

    2015

  38. [46]

    and Wellner, J.A

    Groeneboom, P., Jongbloed, G. and Wellner, J.A. (2001). Estimation of a convex func- tion: Characterizations and asymptotic theory, The Annals of Statistics , 29, 1653-1698

    2001

  39. [47]

    and Sen, B

    Guntuboyina, A. and Sen, B. (2015). Global risk bounds and adaptation in univariate convex regression, Probability Theory and Related Fields , 163, 379-411

    2015

  40. [48]

    and Heckman, N

    Hall, P. and Heckman, N. E. (2000). Testing for Monotonicity of a Regression Mean by Calibrating for Linear Functions, The Annals of Statistics , 28, 20-39

    2000

  41. [49]

    and Huang, L-S

    Hall, P. and Huang, L-S. (2001). Nonparametric Kernel Regression Subject to Monotonic- ity Constraints, The Annals of Statistics , 29, 624-647

    2001

  42. [50]

    and Pledger, G

    Hanson, P.L. and Pledger, G. (1976). Consistency in concave regression, The Annals of Statistics, 4, 1038-1050

    1976

  43. [51]

    and Mammen, E

    H¨ardle, W. and Mammen, E. (1993). Comparing nonparametric versus parametric regres- sion fits, The Annals of Statistics , 21, 1926-1947

    1993

  44. [52]

    Harville, D.A. (2008). Matrix Algebra from a Statistician’s Perspective . Springer-Verlag

    2008

  45. [53]

    Semiparametric estimation for stationary process whose spectra have an unknown pole, The Annals of Statistics , 33(4), 1843-1889

    Hidalgo, J.(2005). Semiparametric estimation for stationary process whose spectra have an unknown pole, The Annals of Statistics , 33(4), 1843-1889

    2005

  46. [54]

    Hildreth, C. (1954). Point estimates of ordinates of concave functions, Journal of American Statistical Association, 49, 598-619

    1954

  47. [55]

    and White, H

    Hong, Y. and White, H. (1995). Consistent Specification Testing via Nonparametric Series Regression, Econometrica, 63, 1133-1160. 50 TATIANA KOMAROVA AND JAVIER HIDALGO

    1995

  48. [56]

    and Nemirovski, A

    Juditsky, A. and Nemirovski, A. (2002). On nonparametric tests of positiv- ity/monotonicity/convexity,The Annals of Statistics , 30, 498-527

    2002

  49. [57]

    Khmaladze, E.V. (1981). Martingale approach to the theory of goodness of fit tests, Theory Probability and its Applications , 26, 240-257

    1981

  50. [58]

    Kostyshak, S. (2017). Non-Parametric Testing of U-Shaped Relationships. Working paper, University of Florida

    2017

  51. [59]

    and Stute, W

    Koul, H.L. and Stute, W. (1999). Nonparametric model checks for time series, The Annals of Statistics, 27, 204-237

    1999

  52. [60]

    Krishna, V. (2010). Auction Theory. Academic Press

    2010

  53. [61]

    and Yoo, J

    Lee, B-G., Park, Y. and Yoo, J. (2002). Application of Legendre-Bernstein basis transfor- mations to degree elevation and degree reduction, Computer Aided Geometric Design , 19, 709-718

    2002

  54. [62]

    Lee, Y., and Robinson, P.M. (2016). Series estimation under cross-sectional dependence, Journal of Econometrics , 190, 1-17

    2016

  55. [63]

    Li, Y-M., and Zhang, X-Y. (1998). Basis conversion among B´ ezier, Tchebyshev, and Le- gendre, Computer Aided Geometric Design , 15, 637-642

    1998

  56. [64]

    and Swetits, J

    Li, W., Naik, D. and Swetits, J. (1996). A data smoothing technique for piecewise con- vex/concave curves, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 17, 517-537

    1996

  57. [65]

    and Melhum, H

    Lind, J.T. and Melhum, H. (2010). With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U- Shaped Relationship, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics , 72, 109-118

    2010

  58. [66]

    Mammen, E. (1991a). Estimating a Smooth Monotone Regression Function, The Annals of Statistics, 19, 724-740

    1991

  59. [67]

    Mammen, E. (1991b). Nonparametric regression under qualitative smoothness assumptions, The Annals of Statistics , 19, 741-759

    1991

  60. [68]

    and Thomas-Agnan, C

    Mammen, E. and Thomas-Agnan, C. (1999). Smoothing splines and shape restrictions, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 26, 239-252

    1999

  61. [69]

    Meyer, M.C. (2008). Inference using shape-restricted regression splines, The Annals of Ap- plied Statistics, 2, 1013-1033

    2008

  62. [70]

    Moyes, P. (2003). Redistributive effects of minimal equal sacrifice taxation, Journal of Economic Theory, 108, 111-140

    2003

  63. [71]

    Mukerjee, H. (1988). Monotone nonparametric regression, The Annals of Statistics , 16, 741-750

    1988

  64. [72]

    M¨uller, H.G. (1989). Adaptive nonparametric peak estimation. The Annals of Statistics , 17, 1053-1069

    1989

  65. [73]

    Newey, W.K. (1997). Convergence rates and asymptotic normality for series estimators, Journal of Econometrics , 79, 147-168

    1997

  66. [74]

    Niculescu, C.P. (2003). Convexity according to means, Mathematical Inequalities and Ap- plications, 6, 571579

    2003

  67. [75]

    and Stute, W

    Nikabadze, A. and Stute, W. (1997). Model checks under random censorship, Statistics & Probability Letters, 32, 249-259

    1997

  68. [76]

    O’Sullivan, F. (1986). A statistical perspective on ill-posed inverse problems (with Discus- sion), Statistical Science, 1, 505-527

    1986

  69. [77]

    O’Sullivan, F. (1988). Nonparametric estimation of relative risk using splines and crossval- idation, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing , 9(3), 531-542

    1988

  70. [78]

    and Boyd, S

    Park, J. and Boyd, S. (2017). General heuristics for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming, arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07870

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ramsay, J.O. (1988). Monotone regression splines in action, Statistical Science, 3(4), 425- 461

    1988

  72. [80]

    Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations . New York: Free Press

    2003

  73. [81]

    Schlee, W. (1982). Nonparametric Tests of the Monotony and Convexity of Regression, in Nonparametric Statistical Inference. Amsterdam: North-Holland

    1982

  74. [82]

    Simonsohn, U. (2017). Two-Lines: A Valid Alternative to the Invalid Testing of U-Shaped Relationships with Quadratic Regressions. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania

    2017

  75. [83]

    Stephens, M.A. (1992). Introduction to Kolmogorov (1933). On the empirical determination of a distribution function. Breakthroughs in Statistics, Volume II. Methodology and Distri- bution (Samuel Kotz and Norman L. Johnson., eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, 93-105

    1992

  76. [84]

    Stute, W. (1997). Nonparametric model checks for regression, The Annals of Statistics , 25, 613-641. TESTING NONPARAMETRIC SHAPE RESTRICTIONS 51

    1997

  77. [85]

    and Presedo Quindimil, M

    Stute, W., Gonz ´alez Manteiga, W. and Presedo Quindimil, M. (1998a). Bootstrap approximations in model checks for regression, Journal of American Statistical Association , 93, 141-149

    1998

  78. [86]

    and Zhu, L.-X

    Stute, W., Thies, S. and Zhu, L.-X. (1998b). Model checks for regression: An innovation process approach, The Annals of Statistics , 26, 1916-1934

    1998

  79. [87]

    and Trefler, D

    Sutton, J. and Trefler, D. (2016). Capabilities, Wealth, and Trade, Journal of Political Economy, 124(3), 826-878

    2016

  80. [88]

    Utterback, J. M. (1996). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , Harvard Business Press

    1996

  81. [89]

    and Meyer, M.C

    Wang, J.C. and Meyer, M.C. (2011). Testing the monotonicity or convexity of a function using regression splines, The Canadian Journal of Statistics , 39 (1) , 89-107

    2011

  82. [90]

    Weiman, C.G. (1977). A study of occupational stressor and the incidence of disease/risk, Journal of Occupational Medicine ,19, 119-122

    1977

  83. [91]

    Wright, F.T. (1981). The Asymptotic Behaviour of Monotone Regression Estimates, The Annals of Statistics , 2, 443-448

    1981

  84. [92]

    Wu, W.B. (2003). Empirical processes of long-memory sequences, Bernoulli, 9 (5), 809-831

    2003

  85. [93]

    Zhou, S., Shen, X. and D.A. Wolfe (1998). Local Asymptotics for Regression Splines and Confidence Regions, The Annals of Statistics , 26, 1760-1782. Economics Department, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, U.K. E-mail address: t.komarova@lse.ac.uk URL...

    1998

  86. [94]

    L′ + 1 denotes the number of equidistant knots on each subinterval [0,s 0] and [s0, 1]

    Rejection rates in 2000 simulations. L′ + 1 denotes the number of equidistant knots on each subinterval [0,s 0] and [s0, 1] . N denotes the number of observations in each simulation. σ is the standard deviation in the error distribution. 54 Tables Setting Method B-splines P-sp...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.