Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Trend Filtering -- I. A Modern Statistical Tool for Time-Domain Astronomy and Astronomical Spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trend filtering is minimax optimal for spatially heterogeneous signals and beats every linear smoother.

desk verdict A solid, honest methods-transfer paper that would land better if the abstract matched the theorem: trend filtering is minimax-optimal over L1 Sobolev classes, not universally superior to linear smoothers. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07151 v3 pith:H2LYTSEE submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.COastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRstat.AP

Collin A. Politsch , Jessi Cisewski-Kehe , Rupert A. C. Croft , Larry Wasserman This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.COastro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRstat.AP
keywords trendfilteringspatiallyheterogeneoussignalsminimaxoptimalitylinearsmoothersnonparametricregressiontime-domainastronomyastronomicalspectroscopyL1Sobolevclass
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

Trend filtering is a nonparametric method for denoising one-dimensional signals whose smoothness changes across the domain, such as a light curve with a smooth baseline interrupted by transient dips, or a spectrum with a smooth continuum plus sharp emission and absorption lines. The paper argues that for such spatially heterogeneous signals, trend filtering is minimax optimal over the natural L1 Sobolev signal class, while every linear smoother—kernel smoothers, LOESS, smoothing splines, and Gaussian process regression—is provably suboptimal. Concretely, for piecewise constant signals, trend filtering achieves worst-case error rate $n^{-2/3}$, and a linear smoother would need $n^{4/3}$ observations to match it. The paper also shows the estimate can be computed by a specialized convex optimization algorithm that handles $n \gtrsim 10^7$ points in minutes, with a single hyperparameter chosen data-drivenly. If correct, astronomers gain a practical default denoiser for time series and spectra that combines the adaptivity of wavelets without requiring equally spaced, power-of-two samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trend filtering estimator, defined as the solution to $\min_{m} \sum_i (f(t_i)-m(t_i))^2 w_i + \gamma \sum_i |\Delta^{(k+1)} m(t_i)| \Delta t$, where $\Delta^{(k+1)}$ is the discrete $(k+1)$-st derivative; this is an L1 analog of the smoothing spline problem and an $\ell^1$ relaxation of variable-knot regression splines. Equivalently, in the falling factorial basis it is a lasso with a single tuning parameter $\gamma$. The $\ell^1$ penalty drives most knot coefficients to zero, giving automatic knot selection and local adaptivity, while the generalized lasso structure (identity predictor, banded penalty) permits an ADMM algorithm with near-linear practical complexity. The hyperparameter is selected by Stein's unbiased risk estimate for fixed-input error or 10-fold cross-validation for random-input error, using the exact degrees of freedom formula $\mathrm{df}(\hat{f}_0)=E[\text{number of knots}]+k+1$.

What would settle it

Simulate worst-case mean-squared error over a well-specified L1 Sobolev ball of heterogeneous signals, comparing trend filtering against the best linear smoother tuned with oracle knowledge of the signal; if any linear smoother matches trend filtering's $n^{-2/3}$ rate for $k=0$, the paper's central optimality claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that trend filtering simultaneously meets four requirements no classical method meets: statistical optimality for spatially heterogeneous signals, practical analysis assumptions (unequally spaced inputs, heteroskedastic noise), scalable computation, and a one-dimensional hyperparameter space with automatic selection. The estimator fits a kth-order piecewise polynomial with knots chosen automatically by an $\ell^1$ penalty on discrete $(k+1)$-st derivatives, i.e. a total-variation penalized least squares problem. The paper's theoretical case relies on results that linear smoothers are uniformly suboptimal over L1 Sobolev classes, while trend filtering attains the minimax rate, e.g. $n^{-2/3}$ for $k=0$ versus at best $n^{-1/2}$ for linear smoothers. The empirical comparison fixes all methods at 55 effective degrees of freedom and shows trend filtering recovering both the smooth trend and sharp localized features, whereas LOESS, smoothing splines, and Gaussian process regression oversmooth the features; the linear smoothers need 192 degrees of freedom to match, and then overfit elsewhere.

Load-bearing premise

The central superiority claim is guaranteed only for signals belonging to an L1 Sobolev class, which the paper equates with 'spatially heterogeneous' signals; if real light curves and spectra fall outside that class, the minimax theorem does not ensure trend filtering beats linear smoothers in practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Denoising light curves with trend filtering should recover transient events such as supernova rises and exoplanet transits without the oversmoothing and ringing that fixed-bandwidth linear smoothers produce.
  • Spectroscopic continuum and line flux estimates can be obtained in one fit, since the estimator separates smooth continuum from localized absorption and emission features while accounting for heteroskedastic per-pixel noise.
  • Survey-scale data sets ($n \gtrsim 10^7$) can be processed within minutes on a single machine, making the method practical for current and upcoming large surveys.
  • Users get a single hyperparameter, selected automatically, instead of Gaussian-process kernel parameters or locally varying bandwidths, removing a major source of manual tuning.
  • The minimax rate gap implies a sample-equivalence result: for $k=0$ heterogeneous signals, a linear smoother needs about $n^{4/3}$ observations to learn as fast as trend filtering, so trend filtering is especially valuable in low-signal or sparse regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-stage relaxation idea used here—select knots with an $\ell^1$ penalty, then refit by weighted least squares—could be applied to other $\ell^1$-penalized estimators in astronomy to reduce shrinkage bias while keeping automatic knot selection.
  • If real astronomical signals deviate from L1 Sobolev classes, for instance by being fractal or containing multi-scale noise, the minimax guarantee is not directly binding; a natural extension is to test trend filtering against wavelet denoising on unequally sampled real data, where wavelet optimality is void.
  • Because trend filtering is nonlinear, its sampling distribution is non-Gaussian even for Gaussian noise; the paper's bootstrap recommendations imply that reporting only Gaussian error bars for denoised light curves will understate uncertainty, and quantile bands should be adopted widely.
  • The $n^{4/3}$ sample-size equivalence could inform survey design: to detect sharp spectral features at a given significance with linear methods one needs substantially more exposure time, whereas with trend filtering shorter exposures may suffice.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces trend filtering to the astronomical community as a locally adaptive nonparametric denoiser for one-dimensional signals with spatially varying smoothness. The authors argue in Section 2 that linear smoothers are suboptimal for such signals, citing minimax results of Nemirovskii et al. and Tibshirani, and present a simulation comparing trend filtering with LOESS, smoothing splines, and Gaussian process regression at fixed effective degrees of freedom. Section 3 provides a tutorial-style description of trend filtering, its relationship to splines, software, hyperparameter selection via SURE and cross-validation, bootstrap uncertainty quantification, and a relaxed variant. The paper's concrete contributions are the astronomical exposition, the SURE selection recipe, three bootstrap algorithms, and supplementary R code.

Significance. If the claims are taken with appropriate qualifications, the paper addresses a genuine need: many astronomical time series and spectra combine smooth continua with sharp features, and standard linear smoothers are not locally adaptive. Trend filtering is a principled alternative with a minimax optimality guarantee over L1 Sobolev classes, flexible sampling requirements, a single tuning parameter, and scalable algorithms. The paper also ships code and clear recipes. However, the manuscript currently overstates the practical meaning of the minimax results and does not quantitatively demonstrate the finite-sample advantage it claims; these are fixable within the scope of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 2.1.2] The abstract's claim that 'when the underlying signal is spatially heterogeneous, trend filtering is superior to any statistical estimator that is a linear combination of the observed data' is stated without qualification. The supporting theory in Section 2.1.2 is a minimax result over the L1 Sobolev class F1,k in Eq. (14): trend filtering achieves the optimal worst-case rate, while linear smoothers do not. This is a worst-case, asymptotic statement over a specific function class, not a guarantee of lower error for every heterogeneous signal. The manuscript itself says the definition of 'spatially heterogeneous' is 'intentionally mathematically imprecise' and notes that L1 Sobolev classes contain spatially homogeneous signals as well, so the abstract overstates the theorem. Please rephrase the abstract to say 'minimax optimal over L1 Sobolev classes (signals with derivatives of bounded variation)' and treat the representativeness of real astronomical signals as a stated, testable premise.
  2. [Section 2.2; Figures 1 and 2] The empirical comparison is visual only. The text reports that trend filtering with 55 effective degrees of freedom is sufficient while LOESS, smoothing splines, and Gaussian process regression require 192 to recover the localized features, but no quantitative error metric (e.g., mean squared prediction error) is reported, no averaging over independent noise realizations is shown, and no uncertainty is attached to the comparison. This single hand-constructed signal is offered as evidence of 'clear practical consequences' for the theoretical gap. The argument would be much stronger with a table of error metrics computed over repeated simulations and, ideally, over several signal shapes.
  3. [Section 3.2; Abstract] The scalability claim that trend filtering handles n ≳ 10^7 within a few minutes appears in the abstract and in Section 3.2, but it is a summary of Ramdas and Tibshirani (2016) and is not reproduced or benchmarked here. Because practical scalability is one of the paper's advertised properties (P3 in Section 1), either provide a small timing benchmark in this paper or explicitly mark the abstract statement as a claim from the cited literature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The text refers to 'Table 3.4' for software links, but the table in Section 3.4 is numbered Table 2; please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the constant trend filtering estimate is discontinuous at the knots but is 'interpolate[d] here for visual purposes'; this should be clarified in the main text so that readers do not mistake the plotted curve for the actual piecewise-constant estimator.
  3. [Table 1] The binomial coefficient in the variable-knot regression splines row is printed as n!/(n!(n−p)!) but should be n!/(p!(n−p)!).
  4. [Equation (16)] The radial basis functions φ_j in the simulation are not specified; please state their exact form, width, and location so the simulation is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are inherited from external minimax theory rather than derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central superiority claim is not derived from its own fitted values. Section 2.1.2 explicitly attributes the minimax suboptimality of linear smoothers on L1 Sobolev classes to Nemirovskii et al. (1985) and Nemirovskii (1985), and attributes trend filtering's minimax optimality to Tibshirani (2014); the scalability claim is attributed to Ramdas and Tibshirani (2016). These are external, parameter-free mathematical results with stated assumptions, not results whose premises include the paper's conclusions. The paper's original additions (SURE hyperparameter selection, bootstrap variability bands, and relaxed trend filtering) are presented as methodology and are not used to establish the abstract's optimality claim. The definition of 'spatially heterogeneous' is admittedly imprecise and is connected to L1 Sobolev classes only as a commonly considered class; no equation defines the term in terms of trend filtering's minimax rate, so the abstract's claim is not tautologically forced by the paper's own definitions. The only self-references (Paper II and Wasserman's textbooks) are expositional and non-load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain is invoked to forbid alternatives.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces one hand-chosen comparison setting and relies on four imported assumptions from the statistical literature. No new physical entities or forces are postulated. The core mathematical optimality result is not derived in this paper, which lowers the discovery novelty but does not make the work circular.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective degrees of freedom in simulation comparison = 55
    In Section 2.2 and Figures 1 and 2, all estimators are fixed to 55 effective degrees of freedom. This hand-chosen value is not fitted to data and does not affect the theoretical claim, but it shapes the empirical illustration.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption L1 Sobolev classes are the right model for spatially heterogeneous astronomical signals.
    Introduced in Section 2.1.2 in the Definition and the paragraphs following Eq. (14). The paper says the definition is "intentionally mathematically imprecise" and then equates spatially heterogeneous with membership in L1 Sobolev classes. The central superiority claim is proven only over these classes.
  • standard math Trend filtering achieves the minimax rate over L1 Sobolev classes (Tibshirani 2014) and linear smoothers do not (Nemirovskii et al. 1985).
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 2.1.2 to support properties P1 and the superiority claim. These are accepted theorems from the cited statistics literature; the paper does not re-derive them.
  • standard math The effective degrees of freedom formula for trend filtering equals expected number of knots plus k+1 (Tibshirani and Taylor 2012), used in SURE.
    Used in Section 3.5, Equation (42), for hyperparameter selection. Standard result from the generalized lasso literature.
  • standard math The ADMM algorithm of Ramdas and Tibshirani (2016) solves trend filtering in O(n^1.5) worst case and near O(n) in practice.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 to support the scalability claim P3 and Table 1. The paper relies on the cited timing results for the n greater than 10^7 claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trend Filtering -- I. A Modern Statistical Tool for Time-Domain Astronomy and Astronomical Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2LYTSEE

@misc{pith2026190807151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trend Filtering -- I. A Modern Statistical Tool for Time-Domain Astronomy and Astronomical Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2LYTSEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07151}
}
abstract

The problem of denoising a one-dimensional signal possessing varying degrees of smoothness is ubiquitous in time-domain astronomy and astronomical spectroscopy. For example, in the time domain, an astronomical object may exhibit a smoothly varying intensity that is occasionally interrupted by abrupt dips or spikes. Likewise, in the spectroscopic setting, a noiseless spectrum typically contains intervals of relative smoothness mixed with localized higher frequency components such as emission peaks and absorption lines. In this work, we present trend filtering, a modern nonparametric statistical tool that yields significant improvements in this broad problem space of denoising $spatially$ $heterogeneous$ signals. When the underlying signal is spatially heterogeneous, trend filtering is superior to any statistical estimator that is a linear combination of the observed data---including kernel smoothers, LOESS, smoothing splines, Gaussian process regression, and many other popular methods. Furthermore, the trend filtering estimate can be computed with practical and scalable efficiency via a specialized convex optimization algorithm, e.g. handling sample sizes of $n\gtrsim10^7$ within a few minutes. In a companion paper, we explicitly demonstrate the broad utility of trend filtering to observational astronomy by carrying out a diverse set of spectroscopic and time-domain analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of statistical methods on data simulated from a spatially heterogeneous signal. Each statistical estimator is fixed to have 55 effective degrees of freedom in order to facilitate a direct comparison. The trend filtering estimator is able to sufficiently distribute its effective degrees of freedom such that it simultaneously recovers the smoothness of the global trend, as well as the abrupt localized featu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Continued): Comparison of statistical methods on data simulated from a spatially heterogeneous signal. Here, each of the linear smoothers (i.e. the LOESS, smoothing spline, and Gaussian process regression) is fixed at 192 effective degrees of freedom—the complexity necessary for each estimator to recover the sharp localized features approximately as well as the trend filtering estimator with 55 effective degrees of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Piecewise polynomials with adaptively-chosen knots produced by trend filtering. From top to bottom, we show trend filtering estimates of orders k = 0, 1, 2 and 3, which take the form of piecewise constant, piecewise linear, piecewise quadratic, and piecewise cubic polynomials, respectively. The adaptively-chosen knots of each piecewise polynomial are indicated by the tick marks along the horizontal axes. The constan… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aigrain S., Parviainen H., Pope B. J. S., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 2408

    2016

  2. [2]

    B., Tibshirani R

    Arnold T. B., Tibshirani R. J., 2016, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 25, 1

    2016

  3. [3]

    B., Sadhanala V., Tibshirani R

    Arnold T. B., Sadhanala V., Tibshirani R. J., 2014, Fast algorithms for generalized lasso problems , https://github.com/glmgen

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    E., et al., 2015, JCAP, 1505

    Bautista J. E., et al., 2015, JCAP, 1505

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    S., et al., 2012, AJ, 144, 144

    Bolton A. S., et al., 2012, AJ, 144, 144

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    G., 1952, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 315

    Cochran W. G., 1952, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 315

    work page 1952

  7. [7]

    Contreras C., et al., 2010, AJ, 139, 519

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Croft R. A. C., et al., 2002, ApJ, 581

    work page 2002

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    pp 12--20

    De Boor C., 1974, in Conference on the numerical solution of differential equations. pp 12--20

    1974

  2. [10]

    De Boor C., 1978, in Applied Mathematical Sciences

    1978

  3. [11]

    Dhawan S., Leibundgut B., Spyromilio J., Maguire K., 2015, MNRAS, 448, 1345

    2015

  4. [12]

    Diamond S., Boyd S., 2016, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17, 1

    2016

  5. [13]

    R., Kass R

    Dimatteo I., Genovese C. R., Kass R. E., 2001, Biometrika, 88, 1055

    2001

  6. [14]

    Dimitriadis G., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3798

    2017

  7. [15]

    L., Johnstone I

    Donoho D. L., Johnstone I. M., 1994, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 99, 277

    1994

  8. [16]

    L., Johnstone I

    Donoho D. L., Johnstone I. M., 1998, The Annals of Statistics, 26, 879

    1998

  9. [17]

    Efron B., 1979, The Annals of Statistics, 7, 1

    1979

  10. [18]

    Efron B., 1986, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 461

    1986

  11. [19]

    Efron B., Tibshirani R., 1986, Statistical Science, 1, 54

    1986

  12. [20]

    Fan J., 1993, The Annals of Statistics, 21, 196

    1993

  13. [21]

    Fan J., Gijbels I., 1992, The Annals of Statistics, 20, 2008

    1992

  14. [22]

    Series B (Methodological), 57, 371

    Fan J., Gijbels I., 1995, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57, 371

    1995

  15. [23]

    Fan J., Gasser T., Gijbels I., Brockmann M., Engel J., 1997, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 49, 79

    1997

  16. [24]

    R., Minin V

    Faulkner J. R., Minin V. N., 2018, Bayesian Analysis, 13, 225

    2018

  17. [25]

    Figueiredo M. A. T., 2003, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 25, 1150

    2003

  18. [26]

    K., 1997, A&AS, 124, 579

    Fligge M., Solanki S. K., 1997, A&AS, 124, 579

    1997

  19. [27]

    P., Aigrain S., Roberts S., Evans T

    Gibson N. P., Aigrain S., Roberts S., Evans T. M., Osborne M., Pont F., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2683

    2012

  20. [28]

    Gijbels I., Mammen E., 1998, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 25, 503

    1998

  21. [29]

    Z., Butler N

    Golkhou V. Z., Butler N. R., 2014, ApJ, 787, 90

    2014

  22. [30]

    G \' o mez-Valent A., Amendola L., 2018, JCAP, 2018, 051

    2018

  23. [31]

    Gy \"o rfi L., Kohler M., Krzyzak A., Walk H., 2002, in Springer Series in Statistics

    2002

  24. [32]

    B., et al., 2002, ApJS, 141

    Hall P. B., et al., 2002, ApJS, 141

    2002

  25. [33]

    Springer

    Hastie T., Tibshirani R., Friedman J., 2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction, 2 edn. Springer

    2009

  26. [34]

    A., et al., 2005, ApJ, 634, 1190

    Howell D. A., et al., 2005, ApJ, 634, 1190

    2005

  27. [35]

    A., Hasminiskii R

    Ibragimov I. A., Hasminiskii R. Z., 1980, Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov LOMI (in Russian), 97, 88

    1980

  28. [36]

    L., 1978, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 15, 328

    Jupp D. L., 1978, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 15, 328

    1978

  29. [37]

    Kim S.-J., et al., 2009, SIAM Review, 51, 339

    2009

  30. [38]

    Koh K., Kim S.-J., Boyd S., 2008, l1\_tf : Software for l1 Trend Filtering , http://stanford.edu/ boyd/l1_tf/

    2008

  31. [39]

    Kornblith S., 2014, Lasso/Elastic Net linear and generalized linear models, https://github.com/JuliaStats/Lasso.jl

    2014

  32. [40]

    W., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 557

    Kov \'a cs G., Bakos G., Noyes R. W., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 557

    2005

  33. [41]

    R., 1989, The Annals of Statistics, 17, 1217

    Kunsch H. R., 1989, The Annals of Statistics, 17, 1217

    1989

  34. [42]

    Department of Statistics, Stanford University

    Land S., Friedman J., 1996, Technical report, Variable fusion: a new method of adaptive signal regression. Department of Statistics, Stanford University

    1996

  35. [43]

    V., Mammen E., Spokoiny V

    Lepski O. V., Mammen E., Spokoiny V. G., 1997, The Annals of Statistics, 25, 929

    1997

  36. [44]

    Liu R., 1988, The Annals of Statistics, 16, 1696

    1988

  37. [45]

    Mammen E., 1993, The Annals of Statistics, 21, 255

    1993

  38. [46]

    L., Howes G

    Maron J. L., Howes G. G., 2003, ApJ, 595, 564

    2003

  39. [47]

    Meinshausen N., 2007, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52, 374

    2007

  40. [48]

    Muller H.-G., Stadtmuller U., 1987, The Annals of Statistics, 15, 610

    1987

  41. [49]

    Nemirovskii A., 1985, Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Tekhn. Kibernet. (in Russian), 3, 50

    1985

  42. [50]

    Nemirovskii A., Polyak B., Tsybakov A., 1985, Problems of Information Transmission, 21

    1985

  43. [51]

    Nussbaum M., 1985, The Annals of Statistics, 13, 984

    1985

  44. [52]

    J., Schervish M

    Paciorek C. J., Schervish M. J., 2004, in Advances in neural information processing systems. pp 273--280

    2004

  45. [53]

    J., Schervish M

    Paciorek C. J., Schervish M. J., 2006, Environmetrics, 17, 483

    2006

  46. [54]

    Park T., Casella G., 2008, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 681

    2008

  47. [55]

    Pearson K., 1900, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 50, 157

    1900

  48. [56]

    V., Verde L., 2010, Phys

    Peiris H. V., Verde L., 2010, Phys. Rev., D81, 021302

    2010

  49. [57]

    E., Madore B

    Persson S. E., Madore B. F., Krzemi \'n ski W., Freedman W. L., Roth M., Murphy D. C., 2004, AJ, 128, 2239

    2004

  50. [58]

    A., Cisewski-Kehe J., Croft R

    Politsch C. A., Cisewski-Kehe J., Croft R. A. C., Wasserman L., 2020, MNRAS, 492

    2020

  51. [59]

    J., 2016, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 25, 839

    Ramdas A., Tibshirani R. J., 2016, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 25, 839

    2016

  52. [60]

    I., Osher S., Faterni E., 1992, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 60, 259

    Rudin L. I., Osher S., Faterni E., 1992, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 60, 259

    1992

  53. [61]

    M., O'Hagan A., 2003, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    Schmidt A. M., O'Hagan A., 2003, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), 65, 743

    2003

  54. [62]

    Steidl G., Didas S., Neumann J., 2006, International Journal of Computer Vision, 70, 241

    2006

  55. [63]

    M., 1981, The Annals of Statistics, 9, 1135

    Stein C. M., 1981, The Annals of Statistics, 9, 1135

    1981

  56. [64]

    J., 1982, The Annals of Statistics, 10, 1040

    Stone C. J., 1982, The Annals of Statistics, 10, 1040

    1982

  57. [65]

    Tennyson J., 2019, Astronomical Spectroscopy: an Introduction to the Atomic and Molecular Physics of Astronomical Spectroscopy

    2019

  58. [66]

    Theuns T., Zaroubi S., 2000, MNRAS, 317, 989

    2000

  59. [67]

    Series B (Methodological), 58, 267

    Tibshirani R., 1996, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 58, 267

    1996

  60. [68]

    J., 2014, The Annals of Statistics, 42, 285

    Tibshirani R. J., 2014, The Annals of Statistics, 42, 285

    2014

  61. [69]

    J., 2015, Statistica Sinica, pp 1265--1296

    Tibshirani R. J., 2015, Statistica Sinica, pp 1265--1296

    2015

  62. [70]

    J., Taylor J., 2011, The Annals of Statistics, 39, 1335

    Tibshirani R. J., Taylor J., 2011, The Annals of Statistics, 39, 1335

    2011

  63. [71]

    J., Taylor J., 2012, The Annals of Statistics, 40, 1198

    Tibshirani R. J., Taylor J., 2012, The Annals of Statistics, 40, 1198

    2012

  64. [72]

    Tibshirani R., Saunders M., Rosset S., Zhu J., Knight K., 2005, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 67, 91

    2005

  65. [73]

    Tolstov A., Nomoto K., Sorokina E., Blinnikov S., Tominaga N., Taniguchi Y., 2019, ApJ, 881, 35

    2019

  66. [74]

    B., 2008, Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation, 1st edn

    Tsybakov A. B., 2008, Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    2008

  67. [75]

    W., 1998, Asymptotic Statistics

    Van der Vaart A. W., 1998, Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics, Cambridge University Press

    1998

  68. [76]

    CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    Wahba G., 1990, Spline Models for Observational Data. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    1990

  69. [77]

    P., Jebara T., eds, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Vol

    Wang Y.-X., Smola A., Tibshirani R., 2014, in Xing E. P., Jebara T., eds, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research Vol. 32, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, Bejing, China, pp 730--738

    2014

  70. [78]

    Wang Y.-X., et al., 2016, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17, 1

    2016

  71. [79]

    Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    Wasserman L., 2003, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated

    2003

  72. [80]

    Springer Texts in Statistics

    Wasserman L., 2006, All of Nonparametric Statistics. Springer Texts in Statistics

    2006

  73. [81]

    E., Kasen D., Blinnikov S., Sorokina E., 2007, ApJ, 662, 487

    Woosley S. E., Kasen D., Blinnikov S., Sorokina E., 2007, ApJ, 662, 487

    2007

  74. [82]

    Wu C., 1986, The Annals of Statistics, 14, 1261

    1986

Pith tools

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