High-Dimensional Hettmansperger-Randles Estimator and its Applications

Guowei Yan; Long Feng; Xiaoxu Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

High-Dimensional Hettmansperger-Randles Estimator and its Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 a high-dimensional version of the Hettmansperger-Randles estimator—a spatial-median location estimator jointly fitted with a banded, trace-normalized scatter matrix—is affine invariant and simultaneously yields a…

desk verdict A substantial high-dimensional robust-testing theory, but the theorems analyze a one-step plug-in estimator while the proposed method is an iterated banded algorithm—that gap is load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01669 v1 pith:2WYZRQGM submitted 2025-05-03 stat.ME

Guowei Yan , Long Feng , Xiaoxu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62H1262H1562F3562H30

keywords Hettmansperger-Randlesestimatorspatialmedianhigh-dimensionallocationtestaffineinvarianceellipticaldistributionsquadraticdiscriminantanalysisCauchycombinationrobustscatterestimation

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 the classic Hettmansperger-Randles joint estimator of multivariate location and scatter, which breaks down when the dimension exceeds the sample size, can be rebuilt for high-dimensional elliptical data by starting from a spatial median and a sparse graphical-lasso precision matrix and replacing the singular spatial-sign covariance matrix with its banded version. The paper proves that this high-dimensional HR estimator admits a Bahadur representation and a Gaussian approximation, and it derives test statistics for the one-sample location problem whose null limits are Gaussian (sum type) and Gumbel (max type) and are asymptotically independent, so they can be combined by a Cauchy combination. If these claims are right, robust high-dimensional inference no longer has to choose between location and scatter: the same estimator also yields a quadratic discriminant classifier whose misclassification rate converges to the Bayes rate under mild moment conditions.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is Algorithm 2, the high-dimensional HR estimator: an alternating iteration that standardizes residuals by the current scatter, updates location by the mean spatial sign of the residuals, and updates scatter from the spatial-sign covariance matrix after banding with bandwidth $h=3$ and trace renormalization, seeded by the spatial median and the SGLASSO precision matrix from equation (2). The theoretical engine is the Bahadur representation (Lemma 1) followed by Gaussian approximation over simple convex sets (Lemma 2), which transfers the null distribution of the standardized location estimate to a standard Gaussian vector; from there the Gumbel and normal limits of the max- and sum-type statistics, their asymptotic independence, and the QDA error-rate consistency all follow.

What would settle it

Run T_MAX under the null using the fully iterated Algorithm 2 with n=100, p=120, and t_3 data, and compare the empirical null distribution to the Gumbel limit used for the critical value. If the 5% empirical quantile of the iterated estimator differs from the Gumbel quantile by more than simulation error (say more than two standard errors over 10,000 replications) while the one-step version matches it, the asymptotic theory does not cover the implemented method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an estimator that solves the two HR fixed-point equations in high dimensions: the location update uses spatial signs of residuals standardized by the current scatter estimate, and the scatter update replaces the spatial-sign covariance matrix with a banded version and then renormalizes by trace. With a spatial-median start and an SGLASSO precision-matrix start, the one-step standardized estimator has a Bahadur representation whose remainder is small enough for Gaussian approximation, yielding a Gumbel limit for the $\ell_\infty$ form of the location statistic and a standard normal limit for its $\ell_2$ form under the null, plus a noncentral normal limit under local alternatives. Sum and max statistics are asymptotically independent, and the four-way Cauchy combination adapts to alternatives sparse in either $\Omega^{1/2}\mu$ or $\mu$. For QDA, plugging the HR location and scatter estimates into the generalized QDA classifier for elliptically symmetric distributions makes the misclassification rate converge to that of the Bayes rule at the stated rate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the estimator whose asymptotics are proven is the estimator that is used: all theorems concern the one-step version with the SGLASSO precision matrix held fixed, while Algorithm 2 iterates banded, trace-renormalized scatter updates, and the paper's own simulations never state which version produced the reported tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

$T_{\mathrm{MAX}}$ has a Gumbel null limit $\exp(-\pi^{-1/2}e^{-x/2})$ and rejects when the $\ell_\infty$ norm of the standardized HR location estimate is large, with power tending to one against alternatives with $\|\Omega^{1/2}\mu\|_\infty \ge C n^{-1/2}(\log p + q_{1-\alpha})^{1/2}$.
$T_{\mathrm{SUM}}$ is asymptotically standard normal under $H_0$, has noncentral normal power under local alternatives, and its asymptotic relative efficiency versus the sample-covariance-based $T_{\mathrm{FLY}}$ is $\{E(r^{-1})\}^2 E(r^2) \ge 1$, equal to $2.54$ for a $t_3$ distribution.
$T_{\mathrm{SUM}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{MAX}}$ are asymptotically independent under local alternatives, so the Cauchy combination tests $T_{\mathrm{CC1}}$ and $T_{\mathrm{CC3}}$ retain size while gaining power under both sparse and dense alternatives.
The four-statistic Cauchy combination $T_{\mathrm{CC3}}$ stays competitive across the paper's four covariance models and three heavy-tailed distributions, adapting to unknown sparsity in either $\Omega^{1/2}\mu$ or $\mu$.
The HR-based QDA classifier has misclassification rate differing from the Bayes rate by $O_p(\lambda_n^{1-q/2} s_0(p)^{1/2} + \lambda_n^{1-q} s_0(p))$, so it tracks optimal classification under heavy-tailed elliptically symmetric data.

Reading between the lines

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

The theorems cover the one-step version of the estimator with the SGLASSO precision matrix held fixed; since Algorithm 2 iterates banded, trace-renormalized updates and the simulations do not state which variant was used, the claimed null distributions would need separate proof if the iterations change the asymptotic law.
Affine invariance plus density-free null limits suggests the same estimator could be dropped into other affine-equivariant procedures, such as two-sample location tests or robust PCA, with comparable gains under heavy tails.
The efficiency identity $\{E(r^{-1})\}^2 E(r^2) \ge 1$ implies HR-based tests dominate least-squares-based tests as tail weight increases; a direct check would be a power comparison at small $n$ with the bootstrap bias correction, where the paper's asymptotic ARE argument is least reliable.
Because the max-type statistic is calibrated to sparsity in $\Omega^{1/2}\mu$ rather than $\mu$, a simulation with a rotated sparse signal (e.g., $\Omega$ a banded matrix and $\mu$ dense in the rotated coordinates) would isolate when $T_{\mathrm{CC3}}$ beats sparsity-in-$\mu$ procedures such as $T_{\mathrm{CC2}}$.

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

You should know two things about this paper. The first is that there is a real, substantive theory here: a Bahadur representation for a spatially standardized median, Gaussian approximation over simple convex sets, asymptotic independence of L2- and L∞-based tests, a Cauchy combination test, and a QDA classifier with a consistency bound. The proofs are long and non-trivially assembled from the spatial-sign literature, and the simulation study is fairly extensive.

The second thing is that the main theorems do not cover the method the paper actually proposes. Lemma 1 and the results that follow treat μhat as the minimizer of (13) with a fixed SGLASSO precision matrix from (2). Algorithm 2, however, iterates a banded, trace-renormalized scatter update with h=3. No convergence or distributional result is given for that iterated procedure, and Section 5 never states which estimator the simulations use. This is not a side issue: the size control of TSUM and TMAX, the asymptotic independence, and the QDA consistency all rest on the one-step estimator. If the implemented algorithm differs, those guarantees do not automatically transfer. The stress-test note gets this right.

There are smaller soft spots. The affine-invariance claim in the introduction is overstated—SGLASSO is coordinate-dependent, so the resulting estimator is not affine-invariant in the usual sense. The bandwidth h=3 is arbitrary, the bootstrap bias correction with M=50 is ad hoc, and the real-data preprocessing selects features with t-tests on the full dataset before splitting, which risks data leakage.

To be fair, I don't see circularity in the derivations; the paper leans on earlier work from the same group, but that's normal in this area. The theory is not obviously wrong on its own terms—it just doesn't match the algorithm.

Who gets value from it? Readers working on robust high-dimensional location tests and discriminant analysis will find the machinery interesting, but they should be careful to distinguish the analyzed estimator from the proposed one. I would like to see a revision that either proves the results for Algorithm 2 or explicitly demotes it to a computational heuristic, with the one-step version as the formal proposal. As it stands, I would not publish it, but I would send it to a serious referee—the gap is fixable and the underlying work deserves a fair reading.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a high-dimensional version of the Hettmansperger-Randles (HR) estimator for elliptical distributions, aiming to simultaneously estimate location and scatter in an affine-invariant manner. It then applies this estimator to one-sample location testing (sum-type, max-type, and Cauchy combination tests) and to quadratic discriminant analysis (HRQDA). The theoretical part derives a Bahadur representation and a Gaussian approximation for the standardized estimator, yielding Gumbel and normal limits for the test statistics and a Bayes-rate consistency result for the classifier. Simulations and a gene-expression data application are used to support the methods.

Significance. The paper's goals are valuable: robust high-dimensional inference for elliptical distributions is an active area, and a joint location-scatter procedure with a QDA application would be a useful contribution if the theorems were proven for the implemented method. The paper leverages a substantial body of existing work (Lu-Feng SGLASSO bounds, Gaussian approximation results, and spatial-sign methods) and provides explicit asymptotic relative efficiency comparisons. However, the central theoretical statements apply to a one-step plug-in estimator that is not the algorithm proposed and simulated; as a result, the headline claims about Algorithm 2, including its affine invariance and the validity of the test sizes and classification consistency, are not supported.

major comments (3)

[§2 (Algorithm 2), §3 (Lemma 1, Eq. (13))] The theoretical core of the paper (Lemmas 1-2, Corollary 1, and Theorems 1-6) is established for a one-step location estimator that takes the SGLASSO precision matrix from equation (2) as a fixed plug-in: the proof of Lemma 1 in §8.2.6 defines μhat as the minimizer of L(θ) in (13) and solves Σ_i U{Ωhat^{1/2}(X_i−μhat)}=0 with Ωhat from (2). The method proposed in the paper, however, is Algorithm 2, whose Step 3 iteratively updates scatter via banding with h=3 followed by trace renormalization, so that the final precision matrix is not the SGLASSO solution (2). The paper contains no convergence analysis, fixed-point characterization, or asymptotic result for this iterated banded estimator. Consequently, the claimed null distributions for TSUM and TMAX (Theorems 1 and 3) and the Bayes-rate consistency of HRQDA (Theorem 6) are not established for the estimator used in the simulations.
[§5 (Table 1, Figures 1-2)] The simulation section does not specify whether the reported empirical sizes and powers are computed with the one-step estimator analyzed in the theorems or with the iterated Algorithm 2. This omission is consequential: if Algorithm 2 is used, the simulations evaluate a procedure for which no asymptotic theory is provided; if the one-step estimator is used, the simulations do not evaluate the headline HR estimator of Section 2. In addition, the SGLASSO tuning parameter λ_n used in the simulations is not reported, even though Lemma 1 and Lemma 4 state specific choices of λ_n that are needed for the theoretical rates to hold.
[§1 Introduction; §2 Algorithm 2; §3, TMAX definition] The claim that the proposed high-dimensional HR estimator estimates location and scatter 'in an affine-invariant manner' is not supported by the algorithm as written. Step 3 of Algorithm 2 applies the coordinate-dependent banding operator B_h with h=3 and trace normalization, and the initial spatial median μhat_0 in (1) is not affine equivariant, so the estimator does not satisfy the usual affine equivariance property under transformations X ↦ AX+b. The further statement in §3 that TMAX is 'obviously' affine invariant is likewise not justified: even for an affine-equivariant estimator pair, the max-norm ‖Ωhat^{1/2} μhat‖_∞ is not invariant under a general nonsingular transformation A. Because affine invariance is advertised as a key advantage over prior scalar-invariant estimators, this claim must be either proved for the actual algorithm or withdrawn.

minor comments (4)

[Title page] The title page contains a typo: 'and i ts Applications' should read 'and its Applications'.
[§5.2] In the description of the mixture normal distribution, 'Xi2∼MN (µ2, Σ2, 10.0.8)' should read 'MN (µ2, Σ2, 10, 0.8)'.
[§5.1] The sentence 'We found that all the test could control the empirical sizes very well' should read 'all the tests'.
[§3, bootstrap paragraph] The bootstrap bias correction is introduced informally; a few sentences explaining why the bootstrap mean and variance correct the asymptotic bias would improve readability, and the statement that 'M = 50 is always enough' should be supported or softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: derivations are self-contained given external SGLASSO results; the theory/algorithm gap is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's theoretical results (Lemmas 1-2, Theorems 1-6) derive the null distributions of TMAX/TSUM and the QDA risk bound from a Bahadur representation of the one-step precision-matrix plug-in estimator. The test statistics are functions of estimated parameters whose rates are bounded via Lemma 4, restated from Lu and Feng (2025), and the Gumbel/Gaussian limits come from external results (Cai et al. 2013) plus the paper's own Gaussian approximation. There is no equation in which the target distribution is assumed as an input: the null limits are computed from the Bahadur representation, and the bootstrap is used only to estimate mean/variance corrections, not to fit the claimed limit. The same-group citations (Lemma 4 from Lu and Feng 2025; Theorem 7 from Liu et al. 2024) are parameter-free results with stated assumptions that do not include the test statistics or QDA risk bounds being proved, so under the independence rule they are external support rather than circular premises. The substantive weakness—that Section 3's theorems treat the fixed SGLASSO plug-in estimator while Algorithm 2 iterates a banded, trace-renormalized update, and the simulations do not state which estimator is used—is a gap between theory and implementation, not a circular definition or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. No step of the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard high-dimensional assumptions (Assumptions 1-6), on the SGLASSO consistency result of Lu and Feng (2025) which is restated as Lemma 4 without independent verification, and on an unproven equivalence between Algorithm 2 and the one-step estimator used in the proofs. The only genuinely ad hoc element is the fixed bandwidth.

free parameters (3)

bandwidth h = 3
Set to h=3 in Section 2 with no data-driven rule or sensitivity analysis; the estimator's properties and simulation results depend on this choice.
SGLASSO tuning lambda_n in simulations = unspecified
The precision initializer (2) requires a penalty; the paper gives a theoretical rate but does not state how lambda is selected in simulations or real data.
bootstrap size M = 50
M=50 is asserted to be always enough for empirical sizes, without theoretical justification.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumptions 1-4 (moment, sparsity, spectral and direction conditions) hold for the elliptical model.
Used in Lemmas 1-2 and Theorems 1-5; they restrict the class of distributions and covariance/precision matrices.
domain assumption Lemma 4, restated as Theorem 1 of Lu and Feng (2025), gives the consistency rates for the SGLASSO estimator (2).
The Bahadur representation and all subsequent Gaussian approximations depend on these rates; the cited paper is a same-group preprint with no independent verification.
domain assumption Theorem 7 of Liu et al. (2024) supplies asymptotic independence of TSUM2 and TMAX2.
Used in the proof of Theorem 5; again a same-group result.
ad hoc to paper Algorithm 2 converges to a fixed point whose asymptotic behavior is governed by Lemma 1.
No convergence proof or fixed-point analysis is provided; the theoretical results treat a one-step estimator based on (2), not the iterated banded estimator.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Dimensional Hettmansperger-Randles Estimator and its Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WYZRQGM

@misc{pith2026250501669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Dimensional Hettmansperger-Randles Estimator and its Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WYZRQGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01669}
}

read the original abstract

The classic Hettmansperger-Randles Estimator has found extensive use in robust statistical inference. However, it cannot be directly applied to high-dimensional data. In this paper, we propose a high-dimensional Hettmansperger-Randles Estimator for the location parameter and scatter matrix of elliptical distributions in high-dimensional scenarios. Subsequently, we apply these estimators to two prominent problems: the one-sample location test problem and quadratic discriminant analysis. We discover that the corresponding new methods exhibit high effectiveness across a broad range of distributions. Both simulation studies and real-data applications further illustrate the superiority of the newly proposed methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01669 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Power curves of three Cauchy Combination tests with diffe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

Ayyala, D. N., J. Park, and A. Roy (2017). Mean vector testing for high-dimensional dependent observations. Journal of Multivariate Analysis\/ 153 , 136--155

work page 2017
[2]

Bai, Z. and H. Saranadasa (1996). Effect of high dimension: by an example of a two sample problem. Statistica Sinica\/ 6 , 311--329

1996
[3]

Bickel, P. J. and E. Levina (2008a). Covariance regularization by thresholding. The Annals of Statistics\/ 36\/ (6), 2577--2604

work page 2008
[4]

Bickel, P. J. and E. Levina (2008b). Regularized estimation of large covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics\/ 36\/ (1), 199--227

work page 2008
[5]

Bose, S., A. Pal, R. SahaRay, and J. Nayak (2015). Generalised quadratic discriminant analysis. Pattern Recognit.\/ 48 , 2676--2684

work page 2015
[6]

Liu, and X

Cai, T., W. Liu, and X. Luo (2011). A constrained l1 minimization approach to sparse precision matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 494\/ (106), 594--607

work page 2011
[7]

Liu, and Y

Cai, T., W. Liu, and Y. Xia (2013, 08). Two-sample test of high dimensional means under dependence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 76\/ (2), 349--372

work page 2013
[8]

Cai, T. T. and L. Zhang (2021). A convex optimization approach to high-dimensional sparse quadratic discriminant analysis. The Annals of Statistics\/ 49\/ (3), 1537--1568

work page 2021

Show all 53 references

[9]

Jiang, and X

Chang, J., Q. Jiang, and X. Shao (2023). Testing the martingale difference hypothesis in high dimension. Journal of Econometrics\/ 235\/ (2), 972--1000

2023
[10]

Yao, and W

Chang, J., Q. Yao, and W. Zhou (2017). Testing for high-dimensional white noise using maximum cross-correlations. Biometrika\/ 104\/ (1), 111--127

2017
[11]

Chen, D. C., L. Feng, and D. C. Liang (2024). Asymptotic independence of the quadratic form and maximum of independent random variables with applications to high-dimensional tests. Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series\/ 40\/ (12), 3093--3126

2024
[12]

X., L.-X

Chen, S. X., L.-X. Zhang, and P.-S. Zhong (2010). Tests for high-dimensional covariance matrices. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 105\/ (490), 810--819

2010
[13]

Peng, and C

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

2023 arXiv
[14]

Chetverikov, and K

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

2013
[15]

Chetverikov, and K

Chernozhukov, V., D. Chetverikov, and K. Kato (2017). Central limit theorems and bootstrap in high dimensions . The Annals of Probability\/ 45\/ (4), 2309 -- 2352

2017
[16]

Liao, and H

Fan, J., Y. Liao, and H. Liu (2016). An overview of the estimation of large covariance and precision matrices. The Econometrics Journal\/ 19\/ (1), C1--C32

2016
[17]

Liao, and J

Fan, J., Y. Liao, and J. Yao (2015). Power enhancement in high dimensional cross-sectional tests. Econometrica\/ 83\/ (4), 1497--1541

2015
[18]

Feng, L. (2024). Spatial sign based principal component analysis for high dimensional data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13267\/

2024 arXiv
[19]

Jiang, X

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

2024
[20]

Jiang, B

Feng, L., T. Jiang, B. Liu, and W. Xiong (2022). Max-sum tests for cross-sectional independence of high-dimensional panel data . The Annals of Statistics\/ 50\/ (2), 1124 -- 1143

2022
[21]

Feng, L., W. Lan, B. Liu, and Y. Ma (2022). High-dimensional test for alpha in linear factor pricing models with sparse alternatives. Journal of Econometrics\/ 229\/ (1), 152--175

2022
[22]

Liu, and Y

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

2021
[23]

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

2016
[24]

Zou, and Z

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

2016
[25]

Feng, L., C. Zou, Z. Wang, and L. Zhu (2015). Two-sample behrens-fisher problem for high-dimensional data. Statistica Sinica\/ 25 , 1297--1312

2015
[26]

Friedman, J. H. (1989). Regularized discriminant analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 84 , 165--175

1989
[27]

Simar, et al

H \"a rdle, W., L. Simar, et al. (2007). Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg.>> doi\/ 10 , 978--3

2007
[28]

He, Y., G. Xu, C. Wu, and W. Pan (2021). Asymptotically independent u-statistics in high-dimensional testing. Annals of Statistics\/ 49\/ (1), 151--181

2021
[29]

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

2002
[30]

Huang, Y., C. Li, R. Li, and S. Yang (2022). An overview of tests on high-dimensional means. Journal of Multivariate Analysis\/ 188 , 104813

2022
[31]

Koike, Y. (2021). Notes on the dimension dependence in high-dimensional central limit theorems for hyperrectangles. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science\/ 4 , 257--297

2021
[32]

Li, Q. and J. Shao (2015). Sparse quadratic discriminant analysis for high dimensional data. Statistica Sinica\/ , 457--473

2015
[33]

Li, W. and Y. Xu (2022). Asymptotic properties of high-dimensional spatial median in elliptical distributions with application. Journal of Multivariate Analysis\/ 190 , 104975

2022
[34]

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

2024 arXiv
[35]

Lu, Z. and L. Feng (2025). Robust sparse presicion matrix estimation and its application. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03575\/

2025 arXiv
[36]

Feng, and Z

Ma, H., L. Feng, and Z. Wang (2024). Adaptive l-statistics for high dimensional test problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14308\/

2024 arXiv
[37]

Muirhead, R. J. (2009). Aspects of multivariate statistical theory . John Wiley & Sons

2009
[38]

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

2010
[39]

Ollila, E. (2024). Linear shrinkage of sample covariance matrix or matrices under elliptical distributions: a review. Elliptically Symmetric Distributions in Signal Processing and Machine Learning\/ , 79--109

2024
[40]

Ollila, E. and A. Breloy (2022). Regularized tapered sample covariance matrix. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing\/ 70 , 2306--2320

2022
[41]

Randles, R. H. (2000). A simpler, affine equivariant multivariate, distribution-free sign test. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 95 , 1263--1268

2000
[42]

Raninen, E. and E. Ollila (2021). Bias adjusted sign covariance matrix. IEEE Signal Processing Letters\/ 29 , 339--343

2021
[43]

Raninen, E., D. E. Tyler, and E. Ollila (2021). Linear pooling of sample covariance matrices. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing\/ 70 , 659--672

2021
[44]

Shen, A. and L. Feng (2025). A spatial-sign based direct approach for high dimensional sparse quadratic discriminant analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11187\/

2025 arXiv
[45]

Sinnaeve, P. R., M. P. Donahue, P. Grass, D. Seo, J. Vonderscher, S.-D. Chibout, W. E. Kraus, M. Sketch Jr, C. Nelson, G. S. Ginsburg, et al. (2009). Gene expression patterns in peripheral blood correlate with the extent of coronary artery disease. PloS one\/ 4\/ (9), e7037

2009
[46]

Tyler, D. E. (1987). A distribution-free m-estimator of multivariate scatter. The Annals of Statistics\/ 15\/ (1), 234--251

1987
[47]

Peng, and R

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

2015
[48]

Qin, and M

Wu, Y., Y. Qin, and M. Zhu (2019). Quadratic discriminant analysis for high-dimensional data. Statistica Sinica\/ 29 , 939--960

2019
[49]

Xiong, C., Z. J. and X. Luo (2016). Ridge-forward quadratic discriminant analysis in high-dimensional situations. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity\/ 29 , 1703--1715

2016
[50]

Xu, G., L. Lin, P. Wei, and W. Pan (2016). An adaptive two-sample test for high-dimensional means. Biometrika\/ 103\/ (3), 609--624

2016
[51]

Yuan, M. and Y. Lin (2007). Model selection and estimation in the gaussian graphical model. Biometrika\/ 94 , 19 -- 35

2007
[52]

Zhong, P. S., C. S. X. and M. Xu (2013). Tests alternative to higher criticism for high dimensional means under sparsity and column-wise dependence. The Annals of Statistics\/ 41\/ (6), 2820--2851

2013
[53]

Zou, C., L. Peng, L. Feng, and Z. Wang (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]

Ayyala, D. N., J. Park, and A. Roy (2017). Mean vector testing for high-dimensional dependent observations. Journal of Multivariate Analysis\/ 153 , 136--155

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Bai, Z. and H. Saranadasa (1996). Effect of high dimension: by an example of a two sample problem. Statistica Sinica\/ 6 , 311--329

1996

[3] [3]

Bickel, P. J. and E. Levina (2008a). Covariance regularization by thresholding. The Annals of Statistics\/ 36\/ (6), 2577--2604

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Bickel, P. J. and E. Levina (2008b). Regularized estimation of large covariance matrices. The Annals of Statistics\/ 36\/ (1), 199--227

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Bose, S., A. Pal, R. SahaRay, and J. Nayak (2015). Generalised quadratic discriminant analysis. Pattern Recognit.\/ 48 , 2676--2684

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Liu, and X

Cai, T., W. Liu, and X. Luo (2011). A constrained l1 minimization approach to sparse precision matrix estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 494\/ (106), 594--607

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Liu, and Y

Cai, T., W. Liu, and Y. Xia (2013, 08). Two-sample test of high dimensional means under dependence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 76\/ (2), 349--372

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Cai, T. T. and L. Zhang (2021). A convex optimization approach to high-dimensional sparse quadratic discriminant analysis. The Annals of Statistics\/ 49\/ (3), 1537--1568

work page 2021