Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Adaptable Fingerprinting with Nonlinear Shrinkage for Climate Change Detection and Attribution under Variance Heterogeneity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Nonlinear shrinkage of the error covariance restores the asymptotic optimality of total least squares scaling-factor estimates in high-dimensional fingerprinting.

desk verdict Solid fixed-f theory for polynomial shrinkage fingerprinting, but the data-driven selector actually used in simulations and the application is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12496 v1 pith:ACBLLHZO submitted 2026-08-12 stat.ME stat.AP

Haoran Li , Yan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEstat.AP MSC 62H1262F1262J05
keywords MeasurementerrorFingerprintingStatisticalRegularizationCovariancematrixestimationTotalleastsquaresHigh-dimensionalinferenceClimatechangedetectionandattributionVarianceinflationfactor
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

Climate detection and attribution regresses observed temperature on model-simulated fingerprints of external forcings, but both the response and the fingerprints carry internal-variability noise whose covariance matrix must be estimated from a limited number of control runs. The paper proposes to estimate that covariance by a nonlinear, rotation-invariant shrinkage: a polynomial function of the sample covariance matrix whose coefficients are chosen to minimize the estimated asymptotic variance of the total least squares estimator of the scaling factors. It further proposes joint estimation of the two variability inflation factors that scale the model noise relative to observations, and derives a residual consistency test for the fitted model. The upshot is a claim that scaling-factor estimates are asymptotically unbiased and their confidence intervals achieve nominal coverage even when the dimension is comparable to the number of control runs, correcting a known source of bias and undercoverage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the polynomial shrinkage function $f(S)=\ell_k S^k+\cdots+\ell_1 S+I_N$ applied to the sample covariance matrix of the control runs, with degree $k$ fixed (recommended $k=3$) and coefficients chosen from an admissible set that keeps $f$ monotone and bounded on the spectral support. Because admissible polynomials have separated roots, the asymptotic variance of the TLS estimator can be written as a partial-fraction formula in terms of resolvent-based quantities $\Delta(f)$, $\Pi(f)$, $\Omega(f)$, and $K(f)$, computed from $S$, the fingerprints, and the estimated inflation factors. Minimizing the estimated trace of $\Xi(f)$ over this set performs the data-driven shrinkage selection, and the same resolvent calculus delivers the estimators of $\sigma_X^2$ and $\sigma_Z^2$ and the residual test statistic.

What would settle it

Simulate the model (1)–(3) with a block-diagonal $\Sigma$ whose two spatial blocks carry different inflation factors, using the same dimensions as the application ($N\approx 600$, $m=151$, $n_i=40$), then compute the empirical coverage of the proposed 90% confidence intervals for the ANT scaling factor; if coverage falls substantially below 90%, the proportional-covariance assumption is the part of the framework that cannot be relaxed without changing the claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the errors-in-variables model (1)–(3), where observation error, fingerprint noise, and control runs are normal with covariances $\Sigma$, $\sigma_X^2\Sigma$, and $\sigma_Z^2\Sigma$, the paper shows that the TLS estimator using the admissible polynomial shrinkage weight matrix $f(S)$ is asymptotically normal with an explicit covariance $\Xi(f)$, and that selecting $f$ by minimizing the estimated trace of $\Xi(f)$ is asymptotically optimal within the class of polynomial shrinkage estimators. When $\sigma_X^2$ and $\sigma_Z^2$ are unknown, the proposed estimators are consistent, and the TLS estimator retains asymptotic normality with a covariance augmented by a term $\Gamma(f)$ that reflects the cost of estimating $\sigma_X^2$; the paper also constructs Wald tests, confidence regions, and a residual consistency test based on these results.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that observation error, fingerprint noise, and control-run variability all have the same covariance shape $\Sigma$ up to constant multipliers $\sigma_X^2$ and $\sigma_Z^2$, and are normally distributed; if the model–observation variability difference is not a common scale multiple of a single matrix, the prewhitening and the resulting confidence intervals are misspecified, a condition the paper's own residual test rejects for large continental regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scaling-factor confidence intervals keep nominal coverage even when the number of spatial-temporal dimensions $N$ is comparable to the number of control runs $m$, a regime where the raw sample covariance matrix is singular or unstable.
  • When the true covariance has nonlinear spectral structure, polynomial shrinkage produces shorter intervals than optimal linear shrinkage while maintaining coverage, improving efficiency in attribution statements.
  • Estimating the inflation factors instead of fixing them at one removes the systematic bias from model–observation variance mismatch and changes detection conclusions in several continental regions.
  • The residual consistency test provides a formal check on the proportional-covariance assumption, and it rejects that assumption for large continental domains while passing subcontinental regions.
  • The same framework extends to any analytic shrinkage function through contour integrals, so domain knowledge about $\Sigma$ can be incorporated without losing the theoretical guarantees.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to allow spatially varying inflation factors within a region; the paper's own residual diagnostic suggests this would resolve the rejections at continental scales.
  • Because the machinery is expressed purely through the spectrum of $S$, the approach should carry over to other high-dimensional errors-in-variables settings, such as genomics or econometrics, where a separate sample estimates the noise covariance.
  • The normality assumption is used for the martingale arguments; whether sub-Gaussian or heavier-tailed errors preserve the coverage claims is an open question that simulations could answer before policy use.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a regularized optimal fingerprinting framework for climate change detection and attribution. It extends the total least squares (TLS) estimator to high-dimensional settings by using a polynomial (more generally, analytic) shrinkage estimator of the error precision matrix, jointly estimating the scaling factors β and the variability inflation factors σ²_X and σ²_Z. The authors provide asymptotic normality theorems for the TLS estimator for any fixed admissible shrinkage function f, consistent estimators for the inflation factors, Wald-type tests and confidence intervals, and a residual consistency test for model adequacy. The method is evaluated in simulations and applied to annual mean temperature over 1951–2020 for several continental and subcontinental regions. The central methodological claim is that the data-driven shrinkage selector f̂ defined in Eq. (19) achieves asymptotic optimality and yields valid inference, but the formal theorems are stated for fixed f only.

Significance. If the claimed results hold, the paper would make a useful contribution to high-dimensional errors-in-variables regression and to climate fingerprinting, where covariance estimation uncertainty and model–observation variance heterogeneity are practically important. The manuscript contains a substantial theoretical supplement with detailed martingale and contour-integral arguments for fixed-f asymptotics, consistent estimation of inflation factors, and a residual diagnostic that is rarely addressed in this literature. The simulation evidence for efficiency gains under nonlinear covariance structures is encouraging, and the application illustrates the practical relevance of estimating the inflation factors rather than fixing them to one. However, the strength of the central claim depends on the behavior of the data-driven selector f̂, and that behavior is not covered by the theorems as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (19); Theorems 3.3, 3.8, 3.11, 3.13] Theorems 3.3, 3.8, and 3.11 establish asymptotic normality for a fixed admissible f, and Theorem 3.13 does the same for the residual test with a fixed f. The actual procedure selects f̂ as the minimizer of trace(Ξ̂(f)) in Eq. (19), and f̂ is used in all simulations and in the application. No theorem supplies uniform convergence of trace(Ξ̂(f)) over the class F, stochastic equicontinuity of the map f ↦ trace(Ξ̂(f)), or selection consistency of f̂ toward the oracle minimizer. Consequently, the claimed asymptotic optimality and the validity of the confidence intervals and p-values based on f̂ are not established by the supplied proofs; the proofs in the supplement, including Lemmas S.2.1–S.5.1 and the CLT argument in Section S.4, treat f as fixed. This is a load-bearing gap between the theory and the implemented method.
  2. [Section 3.3.3 and Section 5] The residual consistency test of Theorem 3.13 is applied in Section 5 and rejects the null model at the 0.05 level for the large continental domains GL, NH, NHM, and EA, while the application still reports attribution intervals for these domains under model (1)–(3). Since the paper's own diagnostic indicates that the assumed proportional covariance and constant inflation structure is misspecified for these regions, the claimed empirical validity of the resulting confidence intervals and attribution statements is called into question. The authors should either restrict the inference claims to the regions where the test is not rejected or provide a robustness analysis showing that the conclusions are insensitive to the suspected misspecification.
  3. [Section 4, Table 4.3 and Remark preceding it] The residual test is evaluated in the simulation study under the true values of σ²_X and σ²_Z, and the authors note that with estimated factors the test over-rejects the null at around 15% for a nominal 5% level. In the application, however, the inflation factors are estimated, not known. This means the calibration of the diagnostic in the setting where it is actually used is not established, and the statement in Section 6 that the residual test is 'rigorously established' and 'consistent' overstates what is shown for the estimated-factor case. The finite-sample calibration under estimated factors should be addressed or the claims should be weakened accordingly.
  4. [Paragraph after Eq. (19)] The sentence 'The proposed strategy achieves asymptotic optimality with respect to the total variance of the TLS estimator, within the class of polynomial shrinkage estimators' is presented without a formal theorem or proof. The lemmas preceding it establish pointwise limits for fixed f, but no result shows that the minimizer of trace(Ξ̂(f)) converges to the minimizer of the corresponding limiting trace, nor that the asymptotic variance at f̂ equals the oracle variance. A precise optimality statement with conditions would be needed to support this claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4.1 caption] The caption lists Setting 2 as Σ_PL and Setting 3 as Σ_LS, which is inconsistent with the order of settings defined in Section 4 and used in Tables 4.1–4.3; the caption should be corrected.
  2. [Table 5.1 caption] The caption says 'the 5 regions analyzed in the study,' but the table lists eight regions (including global and subcontinental domains); the number should be updated.
  3. [Algorithm 2, Step 5] Step 5 says to repeat Steps 2–4 with W = f̂(S), but no stopping rule or convergence criterion is specified for this iterative refinement; a brief remark on the number of iterations or on why one pass is sufficient would improve reproducibility.
  4. [End of Section 3.1] The discussion of multiple minimizers states that any of them may be selected and that they are 'equally efficient with respect to the total variance criterion,' but the asymptotic equivalence of the resulting estimators is not proven; at minimum this should be flagged as a heuristic rather than a theorem.
  5. [General] The notation M_2 in Theorem 3.6 is defined as M_2^2 = 2N^{-1} tr(Σ²), which is slightly awkward because M_2 itself never appears; using a single symbol such as H would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: technical claims are fixed-f theorems with self-contained proofs; the f-hat optimality gap is an unproven correctness assertion, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorems 3.3, 3.8, 3.11, and 3.13 are stated for a fixed admissible shrinkage function f and prove asymptotic normality of the TLS estimator and the residual statistic under assumptions C1-C5; the supplement expands the estimators into score equations, Hessians, and resolvent processes, and the auxiliary objects Delta(f), Pi(f), Omega(f), K(f) are shown to converge to limiting quantities via Lemma 3.2 and Lemmas S.2-S.5 rather than being assumed equal to fitted values. The data-driven selector in (19) minimizes an in-sample estimate of total variance, and the paper's claim of asymptotic optimality for f-hat would require a uniform or selection-consistency argument that is not supplied; however, that is an unproven bridge between fixed-f theory and the implemented procedure, not a reduction of the conclusion to the selection criterion by construction. The self-citations (Li et al. 2020, 2023; Li and Li 2025) are used for technical lemmas and proof strategies in the supplement, and they are peer-reviewed external analyses, so they do not constitute load-bearing circular support. The residual consistency test also plugs in the same estimated quantities, but Theorem 3.13 is a fixed-f statement, and the Section 5 rejections are presented as empirical diagnostics and acknowledged limitations rather than as predictions forced by the test's own construction. Overall, no equation in the paper reduces to a fitted parameter by construction, and no central claim is equivalent to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a substantial set of modeling and technical assumptions: normality and proportional covariance structure in the errors-in-variables model, the standard high-dimensional regime C1-C5, and application-specific choices (stationary block partitioning, linear additivity of forcings). There are no invented physical entities. The method introduces several tuning parameters (shrinkage degree, hyperparameters ψ_1-ψ_3, Υ, and the polynomial coefficients) that are chosen by hand or by an in-sample criterion.

free parameters (6)
  • Polynomial shrinkage coefficients (ℓ_1,...,ℓ_k) = data-driven via grid search over (-10,10)^k
    Selected to minimize estimated total variance trace(Ξ(f)) in (18)-(19); central to the estimator's performance.
  • Polynomial degree k = 3 (recommended)
    User-specified; the paper recommends k=3 based on simulation, but results depend on this choice.
  • Hyperparameter ξ (sets ψ_1 = ξ λ_max(S)) = 1.05-1.1
    Defines the admissible function class; recommended range given in Appendix B.
  • ψ_2 bound = 0.7 ψ_1
    Bounds the maximum of the shrinkage function; recommended value in Appendix B.
  • ψ_3 root separation = 10^{-3}
    Minimum root spacing for numerical stability; Appendix B.
  • Upper bound Υ for σ² grid search = chosen so λ(Υ)=0.95λ_0
    Bounds the search interval for estimating σ_X² in Algorithm 2 (Appendix B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Y = Xβ + ϵ, X-tilde_ik = X_i + η_ik, Z_j ~ N(0, σ_Z² Σ) with all errors normal and independent (model (1)-(3)).
    This is the errors-in-variables model that the entire inference is built on; if noise is heavy-tailed or correlated differently, the claimed normality of estimators fails.
  • domain assumption Covariance proportionality: Var(ϵ)=Σ, Var(η_ik)=σ_X²Σ, Var(Z_j)=σ_Z²Σ.
    The prewhitening and inflation-factor estimation (V_X and V_Z) rely on a common Σ scaled by constants; the paper's own residual test rejects this for large domains.
  • domain assumption Technical conditions C1-C5 (spectral bounds, Marchenko-Pastur regime, asymptotic stability of X projections).
    Required for the random matrix theory proofs; C5 in particular assumes stabilizing projections of the fingerprint matrix onto Σ's eigenspaces, which is hard to verify in practice.
  • domain assumption Temporal stationarity of control runs, allowing partitioning into 70-year blocks to obtain m=151 replicates.
    Used in the application (Section 5) to estimate the covariance; if internal variability is nonstationary, the block construction is invalid.
  • domain assumption Linear additivity X_ANT = X_GHG + X_AER.
    Used in the application to construct the anthropogenic fingerprint from CMIP6 hist-GHG and hist-aer runs (Section 5, following Zhang et al. 2006).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptable Fingerprinting with Nonlinear Shrinkage for Climate Change Detection and Attribution under Variance Heterogeneity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACBLLHZO

@misc{pith2026260812496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptable Fingerprinting with Nonlinear Shrinkage for Climate Change Detection and Attribution under Variance Heterogeneity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACBLLHZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12496}
}
read the original abstract

Detection and attribution of climate change relies on fingerprinting--a linear errors-in-variables regression framework in which both predictors and responses exhibit internal variability governed by a proportional covariance structure, subject to a variability inflation factor. Accurate estimation of the scaling factors (regression coefficients) depends on inferring the precision matrix of the regression errors from limited climate model control runs. In high-dimensional settings, existing approaches often overlook the variance inflation of the predictors and suffer from imprecise precision matrix estimates, yielding biased estimators, underestimated uncertainties, and confidence intervals with poor coverage. We propose a nonlinear, rotation-invariant shrinkage framework for estimating the precision matrix that restores the asymptotic optimality of the total least squares estimator in high-dimensional regimes. Our procedure jointly estimates the scaling factors and the variability inflation factor, thereby correcting estimation bias, and incorporates consistent variance estimators to enable valid uncertainty quantification. We also develop a residual consistency test to assess model adequacy. Numerical studies demonstrate precise estimation, improved confidence interval coverage, and higher efficiency. Applied to annual mean near-surface air temperature data from 1951--2020, our method produces narrower and more reliable confidence intervals, yielding refined attribution results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12496 by the authors.

Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Sampling distributions of the estimated inflation factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.1. Estimated scaling factors for ANT and NAT forcings that best match the observed 1951–2020 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bindoff, N. L. and Stott, P. A. and Achuta. Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:. Climate Change 2013:. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.022 , url =

    doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.022 2013

  2. [2]

    Eyring, V. and N. P. Gillett and K. M. Achuta Rao and R. Barimalala and M. Barreiro Parrillo and N. Bellouin and C. Cassou and P. J. Durack and Y. Kosaka and S. McGregor and S. Min and O. Morgenstern and Y. Sun , booktitle =. Human Influence on the Climate System , year =

    work page

  3. [3]

    Hegerl, Gabriele and Zwiers, Francis , journal =

    work page

  4. [4]

    Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Solomon, S., D

    Understanding and attributing climate change , author=. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, KB Averyt, M. Tignor and HL Miller (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Journal of Climate , volume = 9, number = 10, pages =

    Detecting greenhouse-gas-induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method , author =. Journal of Climate , volume = 9, number = 10, pages =

    work page

  6. [6]

    , journal =

    Hasselmann, K. , journal =

    work page

  7. [7]

    Allen, M. R. and Tett, S. F. B. , journal =

    work page

  8. [8]

    Allen, M. R. and Stott, P. A. , title =. Climate Dynamics , volume = 21, year = 2003, pages =

    work page 2003

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Application of Regularised Optimal Fingerprinting to Attribution

    Ribes, Aur. Application of Regularised Optimal Fingerprinting to Attribution. Climate Dynamics , volume = 41, number =

  2. [10]

    Geophysical Research Letters , volume = 41, number = 4, pages =

    Optimal fingerprinting under multiple sources of uncertainty , author =. Geophysical Research Letters , volume = 41, number = 4, pages =

  3. [11]

    Climate Dynamics , volume = 33, number = 5, pages =

    Adaptation of the Optimal Fingerprint Method for Climate Change Detection Using a Well-Conditioned Covariance Matrix Estimate , author =. Climate Dynamics , volume = 33, number = 5, pages =

  4. [12]

    Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume = 88, number = 2, pages =

    A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices , author =. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , volume = 88, number = 2, pages =

  5. [13]

    Climate Dynamics , volume = 52, pages =

    Confidence Intervals in Optimal Fingerprinting , Author =. Climate Dynamics , volume = 52, pages =

  6. [14]

    Journal of Climate , Year = 2006, volume = 19, number = 17, pages =

    Multimodel Multisignal Climate Change Detection at Regional Scale , Author =. Journal of Climate , Year = 2006, volume = 19, number = 17, pages =

    2006

  7. [15]

    Regularized Fingerprinting in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change with Weight Matrix Optimizing the Efficiency in Scaling Factor Estimation , volume =

    Li, Yan and Chen, Kun and Yan, Jun and Zhang, Xuebin , journal =. Regularized Fingerprinting in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change with Weight Matrix Optimizing the Efficiency in Scaling Factor Estimation , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  8. [16]

    Environmental Research Letters , year = 2021, volume = 16, number = 8, pages =

    Uncertainty in optimal fingerprinting is underestimated , author =. Environmental Research Letters , year = 2021, volume = 16, number = 8, pages =

    2021

  9. [17]

    Katzfuss, Matthias and Hammerling, Dorit and Smith, Richard L , journal=. A. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  10. [18]

    Journal of Climate , Year = 2016, volume = 29, number = 6, pages =

    Integrated Optimal Fingerprinting: Method Description and Illustration , Author =. Journal of Climate , Year = 2016, volume = 29, number = 6, pages =

    2016

  11. [19]

    Supplement to ``Regularized Fingerprinting with Linearly Optimal Weight Matrix in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change'' , author=

  12. [20]

    The Annals of Statistics , volume=

    An adaptable generalization of Hotelling's T^2 test in high dimension , author=. The Annals of Statistics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  13. [21]

    Bernoulli , number =

    Haoran Li and Alexander Aue and Debashis Paul , title =. Bernoulli , number =

  14. [22]

    Journal of Climate , volume=

    Optimal fingerprinting with estimating equations , author=. Journal of Climate , volume=

  15. [23]

    Estimation in a multivariate ``

    Leon Jay Gleser , journal =. Estimation in a multivariate ``

  16. [24]

    Journal of Multivariate analysis , volume=

    On the empirical distribution of eigenvalues of a class of large dimensional random matrices , author=. Journal of Multivariate analysis , volume=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  17. [25]

    An updated assessment of near-surface temperature change from 1850:

    Morice, Colin P and Kennedy, John J and Rayner, Nick A and Winn, JP and Hogan, Emma and Killick, RE and Dunn, RJH and Osborn, TJ and Jones, PD and Simpson, IR , journal =. An updated assessment of near-surface temperature change from 1850:

  18. [26]

    Overview of the

    Eyring, Veronika and Bony, Sandrine and Meehl, Gerald A and Senior, Catherine A and Stevens, Bjorn and Stouffer, Ronald J and Taylor, Karl E , journal =. Overview of the

  19. [27]

    Statistica Sinica , pages=

    Asymptotics of sample eigenstructure for a large dimensional spiked covariance model , author=. Statistica Sinica , pages=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  20. [28]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

    A regularized Hotelling’s T 2 test for pathway analysis in proteomic studies , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  21. [29]

    Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period , volume =

    Gillett, Nathan P and Kirchmeier-Young, Megan and Ribes, Aur. Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period , volume =. Nature Climate Change , number =

  22. [30]

    dacc: Detection and Attribution Analysis of Climate Change , year =

    Yan Li and Kun Chen and Jun Yan , note =. dacc: Detection and Attribution Analysis of Climate Change , year =

  23. [31]

    The Annals of Probability , volume=

    No eigenvalues outside the support of the limiting spectral distribution of large-dimensional sample covariance matrices , author=. The Annals of Probability , volume=. 1998 , publisher=

    1998

  24. [32]

    Climate Dynamics , volume=

    A statistical review on the optimal fingerprinting approach in climate change studies , author=. Climate Dynamics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  25. [33]

    2025 , eprint=

    Regularized Fingerprinting with Linearly Optimal Weight Matrix in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  26. [34]

    The Review of Financial Studies , volume=

    Nonlinear shrinkage of the covariance matrix for portfolio selection: Markowitz meets Goldilocks , author=. The Review of Financial Studies , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  27. [35]

    Probability theory and related fields , volume=

    On the limit of the largest eigenvalue of the large dimensional sample covariance matrix , author=. Probability theory and related fields , volume=. 1988 , publisher=

    1988

  28. [36]

    2008 , publisher=

    Bai, Zhidong and Silverstein, Jack W , booktitle=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  29. [37]

    Convergence of Probability Measures , author=

  30. [38]

    2010 , publisher=

    Spectral analysis of large dimensional random matrices , author=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  31. [39]

    Annals of Statistics , volume = 8, pages =

    Properties of some estimators for the errors-in-variables model , author =. Annals of Statistics , volume = 8, pages =

  32. [40]

    Statistics , volume = 47, number = 5, pages =

    Total Least Squares and Bootstrapping with Applications in Calibration , Author =. Statistics , volume = 47, number = 5, pages =

  33. [41]

    2006 , publisher=

    Measurement error in nonlinear models: a modern perspective , author=. 2006 , publisher=

    2006

  34. [42]

    2009 , publisher=

    Measurement error models , author=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  35. [43]

    Probability Theory and Related Fields , volume=

    Anisotropic local laws for random matrices , author=. Probability Theory and Related Fields , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  36. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.1404 , year=

    Geometric sensitivity of random matrix results: consequences for shrinkage estimators of covariance and related statistical methods , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.1404 , year=

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    2013 , publisher=

    Convergence of probability measures , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

  38. [46]

    Journal of Climate , volume=

    Sensitivity of climate change detection and attribution to the characterization of internal climate variability , author=. Journal of Climate , volume=

  39. [47]

    npj Climate and Atmospheric Science , volume=

    Importance of internal variability for climate model assessment , author=. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

Pith tools

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