Spatial-Sign based High dimensional Change Point Inference

Jixuan Liu; Liuhua Peng; Long Feng; Zhaojun Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Spatial-Sign based High dimensional Change Point Inference

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that replacing sample means with spatial medians and spatial signs yields high-dimensional changepoint tests that are robust to heavy tails, and that combining a max-$L_\infty$ and a max-$L_2$ statistic via Fisher's…

desk verdict Genuinely new independence result for spatial-median/spatial-sign changepoint tests, but the γ=0.5 variant's size distortion is real and needs a better explanation than the stress-test's mismatch claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19306 v1 pith:WUQ77WKN submitted 2025-04-27 stat.ME

Jixuan Liu , Long Feng , Liuhua Peng , Zhaojun Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62H1562G1062G3262G35

keywords changepointdetectionhigh-dimensionalinferencespatialmediansignCUSUMstatisticasymptoticindependenceGumbeldistributionheavy-tailedrobustness

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

This paper claims that high-dimensional changepoint testing can be made both robust to heavy-tailed noise and adaptive to the unknown sparsity pattern of the shift by replacing sample means with spatial medians and spatial signs. It builds two CUSUM-based statistics: a max-$L_\infty$ statistic that detects sparse strong shifts and a max-$L_2$ statistic that detects dense weak shifts. Under the null hypothesis the first converges to a Gumbel law and the second to the supremum of a Gaussian process, and the paper shows the two limits are asymptotically independent. That independence justifies Fisher combining the two p-values, giving a test with asymptotically correct size and power at least comparable to the better single test. The practical payoff is one procedure that works across sparsity levels and heavy-tailed distributions where mean-based changepoint tests lose power.

What carries the argument

The carrying objects are the sample spatial median $\hat\theta_{a:b}$ with diagonal standardization, and the spatial sign $U(x)=x/\|x\|$ applied to standardized residuals. These feed two CUSUM families: $C_\gamma(k)=\{k/n(1-k/n)\}^{1-\gamma}\sqrt n\,\hat D^{-1/2}(\hat\theta_{1:k}-\hat\theta_{k+1:n})$ for the max-$L_\infty$ statistics $M_{n,p},M^\dagger_{n,p}$, and a spatial-sign CUSUM $\tilde C_\gamma(k)$ for the max-$L_2$ statistics $S_{n,p},S^\dagger_{n,p}$. The decisive mechanism is the Bahadur representation supplied by Liu et al. (2024), which turns each spatial median into an average of spatial signs plus a uniformly negligible remainder; that reduction lets the authors borrow the extreme-value analysis of Gaussian CUSUM processes and then transfer it to the sub-exponential spatial signs. Asymptotic independence is established by conditioning on a small block of coordinates, decomposing the remaining Gaussianized process, and bounding the interaction terms, after which Fisher's method is legitimate.

What would settle it

Simulate $n=p=200$ under the null with zero-mean skewed heavy-tailed noise, for example independent components drawn from a centered log-normal or skew-$t$ distribution, and apply the proposed combined test at level 0.05 over many replications; if the empirical rejection rate departs markedly from 0.05 or the two normalized statistics $p^{1/2}\hat\zeta_1 M_{n,p}$ and $S_{n,p}/\sqrt{2\widehat{\operatorname{tr}}(R^2)}$ show dependence in their joint distribution, the size and independence claims fail outside the elliptical model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4: under the null and Assumptions 1–3 and 6–7, the spatial-median-based max-$L_\infty$ statistic $M_{n,p}$ and the spatial-sign-based max-$L_2$ statistic $S_{n,p}$ are asymptotically independent, with $p^{1/2}\zeta_1 M_{n,p}$ converging to a Gumbel distribution and $S_{n,p}/\sqrt{2\operatorname{tr}(R^2)}$ converging weakly to the supremum of a Gaussian process $V(t)$ with covariance $\mathbb{E}V(t)V(s)=(1-t)^2s^2$. Consequently the Fisher-combined p-value $p_{M,S}$ has asymptotically correct size and, by Theorem 5, the independence persists under a local alternative, so the combined test's power is at least comparable to the better of its two components. The same structure is proved for the boundary-removed $\gamma=0.5$ versions $M^\dagger_{n,p}$ and $S^\dagger_{n,p}$, each with its own Gumbel normalization. The argument proceeds through a Bahadur representation for the sample spatial median, a Gaussian-coupling comparison of the joint law of the two statistics, and an inclusion–exclusion bound controlling their joint exceedance probabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the noise model in Equation (2.1): each noise vector must be a random radius times a common linear transformation of independent symmetric components, with the radius independent of the spatial sign; if the noise is heavy-tailed but skewed or has direction-dependent scale, the spatial median may not estimate the mean shift and the Gumbel, Gaussian-process, and independence limits can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the proof is right, the combined test $p_{M,S}$ has asymptotically correct size under the null and power no worse than the better of the max-$L_\infty$ and max-$L_2$ tests, with the $\gamma=0.5$ versions extending the guarantee when the changepoint is away from the sample edges.
The marginal limits make the tests asymptotically distribution-free: the Gumbel and Gaussian-process quantiles do not depend on the specific heavy-tailed law, only on the elliptical-type structure in Equation (2.1).
Sparse signals of order $\|\delta\|_\infty\gtrsim\sqrt{\log p/n}$ are claimed detectable at the usual near-optimal rate, while dense signals are claimed detectable once $\|\delta\|\to\infty$ under the sparsity restriction $\|\delta\|^{-1}\|\delta\|_\infty=o(p^{1/2}n^{-1/2})$.
After rejection, the argmax of the chosen CUSUM statistic yields a changepoint estimator that inherits the better accuracy of the max and sum procedures across sparsity levels.
The asymptotic independence under local alternatives is the property that justifies reporting a single combined p-value rather than needing to know in advance whether the signal is sparse or dense.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the same asymptotic-independence argument should extend to any monotone combination of the two p-values, not just Fisher's, so procedures that average or take minima of transformed p-values would likely inherit the size guarantee.
Editorial inference: for skewed heavy-tailed noise (for example, log-normal or skew-$t$ arrivals), the spatial median no longer tracks the mean shift and the paper's size and power claims are not expected to hold; users should test for approximate symmetry of the noise before applying the procedure.
Editorial inference: because the spatial-sign statistic discards radius information, adding a radius-weighted term could improve power on dense alternatives; the authors' own concluding remarks point in this direction.
Editorial inference: the joint Gumbel–Gaussian-process coupling could serve as a template for other robust high-dimensional test pairs, such as rank-based or self-normalized changepoint statistics.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper does something new: it builds changepoint tests on spatial medians and spatial signs, and proves that the max-L∞ statistic and the max-L2 statistic (with γ=0) are asymptotically independent, justifying Fisher's combination. That independence result is real and likely correct. Second, the γ=0.5 variant has a severe size distortion in simulations, but the stress-test explanation you flagged does not hold up: the factor-2 Gumbel in Theorem 3 comes from taking the maximum over two asymptotically independent halves, not from an absolute-value statistic. The proof works with max |H| as a technical device, but the upper tail of H is the same as the upper tail of |H| because H is bounded below; the factor 2 is from the two halves, so the theorem does apply to the stated one-sided S†. The under-sizing of SSUM(0.5) is real, but it is a finite-sample issue, not a theorem/statistic mismatch.

The paper's real contribution is the γ=0 pair: Theorem 1 (Gumbel for max-L∞), Theorem 2 (Gaussian process for max-L2), and Theorem 4(i) (asymptotic independence). These are solid and genuinely new. The proofs are long and rely heavily on self-cited results (Liu et al. 2024, Feng et al. 2016), but the dependence is transparent and the Bahadur representation is the right tool. The simulation study is extensive and the robustness gains under heavy-tailed noise are clear.

Soft spots: the noise model (2.1) is elliptical-type, so the robustness claims do not cover skewed or direction-dependent heavy tails. The post-hoc exclusion of 146 stocks in the real data is a bit selective. But the biggest open question is the SSUM(0.5) size distortion: the paper's 'slower convergence' explanation is hand-wavy, and a referee should ask for a finite-sample study with larger n and a careful look at the boundary removal parameter. The asymptotic independence between two Gumbel-type limits (Theorem 4(ii)) is a nice addition, though the proof is an extension of the Gaussian case.

Who this is for: anyone working on robust high-dimensional changepoint inference will want the γ=0 theory and the independence result. The γ=0.5 variant needs more empirical scrutiny before being used as a test.

Recommendation: send to a serious referee. The core results deserve referee time and likely publication after revision; the size distortion must be addressed head-on.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops robust high-dimensional changepoint tests for the mean-change model (1.1). The authors construct CUSUM-type statistics based on the spatial median (max-L-infinity tests) and on spatial signs (max-L2 tests), derive Gumbel and sup-Gaussian null limits, prove asymptotic independence between the two types of statistics, and combine the resulting p-values via Fisher's method. They also state consistency results under local alternatives and provide simulations and two real-data analyses. The central theoretical objects are the pair (M_{n,p}, S_{n,p}) and the gamma=0.5 analogue (M^dagger_{n,p}, S^dagger_{n,p}), with Theorem 4 giving the adaptive combination's null validity and Theorem 5 its local power behavior.

Significance. The contribution is potentially useful: it extends robust spatial-sign methodology to changepoint inference in growing dimensions, and the claimed asymptotic independence between two extreme-value limits would justify a simple Fisher combination. The paper is careful in its normalization choices and the simulations cover heavy-tailed distributions and sparsity regimes. I credit the authors for deriving explicit Gumbel normalizations and for attempting a full proof of joint convergence. However, the gamma=0.5 max-L2 branch contains a statistic/theorem mismatch that currently invalidates the stated null distribution, p-value formula, and the corresponding adaptive claims.

major comments (2)

[§4, Eq. (4.4); Theorem 3; §B.3.2] The statistic S^dagger_{n,p} is defined in Eq. (4.4) as a one-sided maximum, S^dagger_{n,p} = max_{\lambda_n <= k <= n-\lambda_n} {\tilde C_{0.5}(k)^\top \tilde C_{0.5}(k) - p} (1-n^{-1/2}), without absolute values. Theorem 3 and the p-value formula in Section 4, however, use |S^dagger_{n,p}|, and the proof in §B.3.2 derives the limit of max_k |H_{np}(k)| rather than max_k H_{np}(k): Eqs. (S29)-(S31) and the definition of Q^{(1)}_{np} reduce the problem to the maximum of absolute values over two independent halves. The factor 2 in exp{-2 exp(-x)} is precisely the signature of that two-sided construction. A one-sided maximum has a different extremal index, so the null distribution in Theorem 3, the p-value formula for S^dagger_{n,p}, and the asymptotic independence/power statements in Theorems 4(ii) and 5(ii) are not established for the statistic defined in (4.4). Table 1's severe under-sizing of SSUM(0.5) (empirical sizes 0.2-1.6% at nominal 5%) is consistent with this mismatch. The explanation in Section 6.2 attributing the behavior to a 'slower convergence rate' should be revisited; the theorem/statistic mismatch is a direct and verifiable cause. The fix is either to redefine S^dagger_{n,p} with the absolute value and update the implementation, or to prove the one-sided limit and adjust the p-value and the subsequent theorems accordingly.
[§6 simulation setup; Theorems 1-3] The simulation section sets \lambda_n = \lfloor 0.2 n\rfloor for all methods (Section 6, simulation settings), but Theorems 1(ii), 2, and 3 require \lambda_n \sim n^\lambda with \lambda\in(0,1) or \lambda_n/n -> 0. A fixed proportion \lambda_n = 0.2n does not satisfy these conditions. Consequently, the empirical sizes and powers reported for SMAX(0.5), SSUM(0.5), and the boundary-removal competitors are not covered by the asymptotic framework that justifies the implemented p-values. The authors should either extend the theory to fixed-proportion boundary removal, report additional simulations with \lambda_n = n^\lambda, or explicitly acknowledge and discuss the discrepancy.

minor comments (6)

[Assumption 2] The phrase 'lim supp' appears to be a typo; as written, b <= limsup_p E(R_i/\sqrt{p})^{-k} <= \bar B only bounds the limit superior, not the sequence uniformly in p, which is what the subsequent use of \zeta_k requires. Please state the intended uniform condition clearly.
[Section 4, p-value formula] The p-value formula for S^dagger has an unbalanced parenthesis: D(\log(n^2/\lambda_n^2) should be D(\log(n^2/\lambda_n^2)).
[Section 3 and 4 notation] The symbol \hat D is used both for the generic diagonal scaling in the model and for its estimator; this can confuse readers in Section 3 where \hat D is constructed from the first and last [n\varrho] samples. A distinct notation for the estimator would help.
[Theorem 5(ii), Propositions 1(ii), 2(ii)] Several secondary proofs are omitted 'by symmetry' (Theorem 5(ii), Propositions 1(ii) and 2(ii)). This is acceptable in principle, but a short sketch of the modifications needed for the omitted cases would aid verification.
[Section 6.2] The statement that SSUM(0.5)'s under-sizing is due to the 'slower convergence rate of the statistic in SSUM(0.5)' is not supported by a rate calculation; the theorem/statistic mismatch identified in the first major comment is a more direct explanation.
[Model (2.1)] In Remark 1, the phrase 'independent with the spatial sign' should be 'independent of the spatial sign'; the grammatical slip could obscure the exact condition being assumed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the test statistics, null limits, and independence results are derived from explicit assumptions rather than fitted, and self-cited technical lemmas carry external proofs that do not include the target result.

full rationale

The derivations in Sections 3-5 are not circular. The test statistics are explicit functions of the data and of estimated spatial median and diagonal matrix quantities; the null distributions are obtained by proving Gumbel or Gaussian-process limits and asymptotic independence, not by building the claimed conclusion into the construction. The p-value formulas invert the proved limits, and the plug-in estimators for zeta_1 and tr(R^2) are shown to be consistent from stable segments, so the 'predictions' are not equal to their inputs by construction. The paper does rely on self-cited technical results, including the Bahadur representation and diagonal consistency from Liu et al. (2024), and spatial-sign moment bounds from Cheng et al. (2023) and Feng et al. (2016). These are cited lemmas with stated assumptions and independent proofs that do not include the changepoint limits proved here, so the self-citations are real evidence rather than load-bearing circularity. The possible one-sided versus two-sided absolute-value mismatch for S-dagger in Theorem 3 is a correctness concern, not a circularity: the theorem's limit is not built into the statistic's definition by construction. Overall, no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's validity rests on a chain of assumptions about the data generating process, none of which is verified from the data in the applications. The free parameters are user-chosen tuning constants rather than fitted quantities. The axioms are all domain assumptions about the noise distribution and shape matrix; they are standard in the spatial-sign literature but restrictive for general heavy-tailed data.

free parameters (2)

lambda_n boundary removal parameter = 0.2n in simulations
User-specified trimming of changepoint locations near the boundary; appears in the null distribution and is a tuning choice.
rho stable proportion = 0.2 in simulations
Proportion of samples at the two ends used to estimate the diagonal matrix D and zeta_1; chosen by hand.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Noise model epsilon_i = nu_i * Gamma * W_i with nu_i nonnegative and independent of the spatial sign of W_i
Eq. (2.1) in Section 2. This elliptical-type structure makes the spatial median estimate theta_0 and gives the spatial sign the needed moment properties; if it fails, the Bahadur representation breaks down.
domain assumption W_i has i.i.d. symmetric sub-exponential components with unit variance
Assumption 1. Guarantees theta_0 is both the mean and the spatial median and provides the exponential tail bounds used throughout the proofs.
domain assumption Moment conditions on R_i^{-k} and on E(R_i / sqrt(p))^{-k} for k = 1 to 4
Assumption 2. Prevents the distribution from concentrating too near the population spatial median.
domain assumption Shape matrix conditions: tr(R) = p, bounded diagonal entries, max row sum <= a0(p) asymptotic to p^{1 - eta_0}, and tr(R^2) - p = o(n^{-1} p^2)
Assumption 3. Needed for consistency of the diagonal matrix estimator and for the Gaussian approximations that underpin the limit theorems.
domain assumption Componentwise correlation sparsity: the set of variables with many correlated partners is o(p)
Assumption 4. Required for Gumbel convergence of the max-L-infinity statistic under H0.
domain assumption Eigen-structure conditions on R for the L2 statistics, e.g. tr(R^4)/tr^2(R^2) = o(1) and growth-rate bounds
Assumptions 5 and 6. Control the quadratic form asymptotics and the remainder terms for the max-L2 tests.
domain assumption Bounded eigenvalues of R and row sum of squared correlations bounded by (log p)^{eta_1}
Assumption 7. Stronger than Assumptions 4-6; needed for the asymptotic independence result in Theorem 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatial-Sign based High dimensional Change Point Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WUQ77WKN

@misc{pith2026250419306,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatial-Sign based High dimensional Change Point Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WUQ77WKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19306}
}

abstract

High-dimensional changepoint inference, adaptable to diverse alternative scenarios, has attracted significant attention in recent years. In this paper, we propose an adaptive and robust approach to changepoint testing. Specifically, by generalizing the classical mean-based cumulative sum (CUSUM) statistic, we construct CUSUM statistics based on spatial medians and spatial signs. We introduce test statistics that consider the maximum and summation of the CUSUM statistics across different dimensions, respectively, and take the maximum across all potential changepoint locations. The asymptotic distributions of test statistics under the null hypothesis are derived. Furthermore, the test statistics exhibit asymptotic independence under mild conditions. Building on these results, we propose an adaptive testing procedure that combines the max-$L_\infty$-type and max-$L_2$-type statistics to achieve high power under both sparse and dense alternatives. Through numerical experiments and theoretical analysis, the proposed method demonstrates strong performance and exhibits robustness across a wide range of signal sparsity levels and heavy-tailed distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19306 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Power of tests with different signal strength ∆, signal sparsity levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of changepoint estimation accuracy with different signal strength ∆, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of changepoint estimation accuracy with different signal strength ∆, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Changepoint estimation in the aCGH data using the SCMS(0.5) method with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Elliptical Regularized Hotelling Tests for High-Dimensional Change-Point Detection
stat.ME 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

ERHT is a new robust, dependence-aware high-dimensional change-point test that is asymptotically calibrated through Gaussian-process limits and consistently localizes multiple breaks by wild binary segmentation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...
[2]

and Horv \'a th, L

Aue, A. and Horv \'a th, L. (2013). Structural breaks in time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 34(1):1--16

2013
[3]

Bai, J. (2010). Common breaks in means and variances for panel data. Journal of Econometrics , 157(1):78--92

work page 2010
[4]

Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of probability measures . New York [etc.]:[sn]

work page 1968
[5]

Cardot, H., C \'e nac, P., and Zitt, P.-A. (2013). Efficient and fast estimation of the geometric median in hilbert spaces with an averaged stochastic gradient algorithm. Bernoulli , 19(1):18--43

work page 2013
[6]

and Perron, P

Casini, A. and Perron, P. (2019). Structural breaks in time series. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance (forthcoming) . Oxford University Press

work page 2019
[7]

Chan, J., Horv \'a th, L., and Hu s kov \'a , M. (2013). Darling--erd o s limit results for change-point detection in panel data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , 143(5):955--970

work page 2013
[8]

Chang, J., Chen, X., and Wu, M. (2024). Central limit theorems for high dimensional dependent data. Bernoulli , 30(1):712--742

work page 2024

Show all 53 references

[9]

Chen, S. X. and Qin, Y.-L. (2010). A two-sample test for high-dimensional data with applications to gene-set testing. The Annals of Statistics , 38(2):808--835

2010
[10]

Cheng, G., Peng, L., and Zou, C. (2023). Statistical inference for ultrahigh dimensional location parameter based on spatial median. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.03126

2023 arXiv
[11]

Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2013). Gaussian approximations and multiplier bootstrap for maxima of sums of high-dimensional random vectors. The Annals of Statistics , 41(6):2786--2819

2013
[12]

Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2017). Central limit theorems and bootstrap in high dimensions. Annals of probability: An official journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics , 45(4):2309--2352

2017
[13]

Chow, Y. S. and Teicher, H. (2012). Probability theory: independence, interchangeability, martingales . Springer Science & Business Media

2012
[14]

and Horv\' a th, L

Cs\" o rg o , M. and Horv\' a th, L. (1997). Limit theorems in change-point analysis . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester

1997
[15]

and R \'e v \'e sz, P

Cs \"o rgo, M. and R \'e v \'e sz, P. (2014). Strong approximations in probability and statistics . Academic press

2014
[16]

Fang, K. W. (2018). Symmetric multivariate and related distributions . CRC Press

2018
[17]

Feng, L., Jiang, T., Li, X., and Liu, B. (2024). Asymptotic independence of the sum and maximum of dependent random variables with applications to high-dimensional tests. Statistica Sinica , 34:1745--1763

2024
[18]

Feng, L., Liu, B., and Ma, Y. (2021). An inverse norm sign test of location parameter for high-dimensional data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 39(3):807--815

2021
[19]

and Sun, F

Feng, L. and Sun, F. (2016). Spatial-sign based high-dimensional location test. Electronic Journal of Statistics , 10:2420--2434

2016
[20]

Feng, L., Zou, C., and Wang, Z. (2016). Multivariate-sign-based high-dimensional tests for the two-sample location problem. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 111(514):721--735

2016
[21]

and Heyde, C

Hall, P. and Heyde, C. C. (2014). Martingale limit theory and its application . Academic press

2014
[22]

and Paindaveine, D

Hallin, M. and Paindaveine, D. (2006). Semiparametrically efficient rank-based inference for shape. i. optimal rank-based tests for sphericity. Annals of Statistics , 34(6):2707--2756

2006
[23]

Hettmansperger, T. P. and Randles, R. H. (2002). A practical affine equivariant multivariate median. Biometrika , 89(4):851--860

2002
[24]

and Hu s kov \'a , M

Horv \'a th, L. and Hu s kov \'a , M. (2012). Change-point detection in panel data. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 33(4):631--648

2012
[25]

Huang, X., Liu, B., Zhou, Q., and Feng, L. (2023). A high-dimensional inverse norm sign test for two-sample location problems. Canadian Journal of Statistics , 51(4):1004--1033

2023
[26]

and Paindaveine, D

Ilmonen, P. and Paindaveine, D. (2011). Semiparametrically efficient inference based on signed ranks in symmetric independent component models. Annals of Statistics , 39(5):2448--2476

2011
[27]

Jin, B., Pan, G., Yang, Q., and Zhou, W. (2016). On high-dimensional change point problem. Science China Mathematics , 59:2355--2378

2016
[28]

Jirak, M. (2015). Uniform change point tests in high dimension. Ann. Statist. , 43(6):2451--2483

2015
[29]

Li, Y., Wang, Z., and Zou, C. (2016). A simpler spatial-sign-based two-sample test for high-dimensional data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 149:192--198

2016
[30]

Littell, R. C. and Folks, J. L. (1971). Asymptotic optimality of F isher's method of combining independent tests. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 66:802--806

1971
[31]

Littell, R. C. and Folks, J. L. (1973). Asymptotic optimality of F isher's method of combining independent tests. II . J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 68:193--194

1973
[32]

Liu, B., Zhang, X., and Liu, Y. (2022). High dimensional change point inference: Recent developments and extensions. Journal of multivariate analysis , 188:104833

2022
[33]

Liu, B., Zhou, C., Zhang, X., and Liu, Y. (2020). A unified data-adaptive framework for high dimensional change point detection. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. , 82(4):933--963

2020
[34]

Liu, J., Zhao, P., Feng, L., and Wang, Z. (2024). Spatial-sign based maxsum test for high dimensional location parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01381

2024 arXiv
[35]

Ljung, G. M. and Box, G. E. (1978). On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika , 65(2):297--303

1978
[36]

Lung-Yut-Fong, A., L \'e vy-Leduc, C., and Capp \'e , O. (2015). Homogeneity and change-point detection tests for multivariate data using rank statistics. Journal de la soci \'e t \'e fran c aise de statistique , 156(4):133--162

2015
[37]

Matteson, D. S. and James, N. A. (2014). A nonparametric approach for multiple change point analysis of multivariate data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 109(505):334--345

2014
[38]

M \'o ricz, F., Serfling, R., and Stout, W. (1982). Moment and probability bounds with quasi-superadditive structure for the maximum partial sum. The Annals of Probability , 10(4):1032--1040

1982
[39]

Muirhead, R. J. (1982). Aspects of multivariate statistical theory . John Wiley & Sons

1982
[40]

S., Hao, N., and Zhang, H

Niu, Y. S., Hao, N., and Zhang, H. (2016). Multiple change-point detection: a selective overview. Statistical Science , 31(4):611--623

2016
[41]

Nordhausen, K., Oja, H., and Paindaveine, D. (2009). Signed-rank tests for location in the symmetric independent component model. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 100(5):821--834

2009
[42]

Oja, H. (2010). Multivariate nonparametric methods with R: an approach based on spatial signs and ranks . Springer Science & Business Media

2010
[43]

Prokhorov, Y. V. and Statulevi c ius, V. (1995). Limit theorems of probability theory . Oxford, Clarendon

1995
[44]

Truong, C., Oudre, L., and Vayatis, N. (2020). Selective review of offline change point detection methods. Signal Processing , 167:107299

2020
[45]

and Feng, L

Wang, G. and Feng, L. (2023). Computationally efficient and data-adaptive changepoint inference in high dimension. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 85(3):936--958

2023
[46]

Wang, L., Peng, B., and Li, R. (2015). A high-dimensional nonparametric multivariate test for mean vector. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 110(512):1658--1669

2015
[47]

Wang, R., Zhu, C., Volgushev, S., and Shao, X. (2022). Inference for change points in high-dimensional data via selfnormalization. The Annals of Statistics , 50(2):781--806

2022
[48]

Wang, Y., Zou, C., Wang, Z., and Yin, G. (2019). Multiple change-points detection in high dimension. Random Matrices Theory Appl. , 8(4):1950014, 35

2019
[49]

Yao, J., Zheng, S., and Bai, Z. (2015). Sample covariance matrices and high-dimensional data analysis . Cambridge University Press

2015
[50]

and Chen, X

Yu, M. and Chen, X. (2021). Finite sample change point inference and identification for high-dimensional mean vectors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 83(2):247--270

2021
[51]

Zhang, Y., Wang, R., and Shao, X. (2022). Adaptive inference for change points in high-dimensional data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 117(540):1751--1762

2022
[52]

Zhao, Z., Luo, X., Liu, Z., and Wang, D. (2022). Optimal change-point testing for high-dimensional linear models with temporal dependence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03880

2022 arXiv
[53]

Zou, C., Peng, L., Feng, L., and Wang, Z. (2014). Multivariate sign-based high-dimensional tests for sphericity. Biometrika , 101(1):229--236

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

[2] [2]

and Horv \'a th, L

Aue, A. and Horv \'a th, L. (2013). Structural breaks in time series. Journal of Time Series Analysis , 34(1):1--16

2013

[3] [3]

Bai, J. (2010). Common breaks in means and variances for panel data. Journal of Econometrics , 157(1):78--92

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Billingsley, P. (1968). Convergence of probability measures . New York [etc.]:[sn]

work page 1968

[5] [5]

Cardot, H., C \'e nac, P., and Zitt, P.-A. (2013). Efficient and fast estimation of the geometric median in hilbert spaces with an averaged stochastic gradient algorithm. Bernoulli , 19(1):18--43

work page 2013

[6] [6]

and Perron, P

Casini, A. and Perron, P. (2019). Structural breaks in time series. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance (forthcoming) . Oxford University Press

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Chan, J., Horv \'a th, L., and Hu s kov \'a , M. (2013). Darling--erd o s limit results for change-point detection in panel data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , 143(5):955--970

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Chang, J., Chen, X., and Wu, M. (2024). Central limit theorems for high dimensional dependent data. Bernoulli , 30(1):712--742

work page 2024