Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Amplitude-Phase Analysis of the COVID-19 Point Process and the Early Countermeasures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Earlier COVID-19 restrictions, not stricter or more numerous ones, are the dimension that associates with flatter first-wave infection curves, and that signal lives in the timing component of the data.

desk verdict Competent and honest paper with a useful WTPCA regression recipe, but the headline timing-flatness association is likely an artifact of the state-specific onset-based window and needs a common-calendar rerun before it can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09684 v1 pith:VKF74RKX submitted 2026-08-10 stat.AP stat.ME

Francesco Tripoli , Leonardo V. Santoro , Tomas Masak This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APstat.ME MSC 62R1049Q2262H25
keywords functionaldataanalysisoptimaltransportpointprocessregistrationWassersteinPCAOxfordStringencyIndexphasevariationamplitude-phaseseparationvector-on-vectorregression
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 asks which dimension of government response mattered for the shape of the first COVID-19 wave across the fifty US states. Treating each state's daily infection counts as a random point process, a stream of events arriving over time, it separates amplitude variation (how many cases arrived and how concentrated) from phase variation (when the wave arrived relative to a common local clock), and it does the same for the Oxford Stringency Index. These components, together with the total case count and the cumulative stringency budget, then enter a vector-on-vector regression. The central finding is that the timing of restrictions is the dimension that associates with the shape of the curve: states that placed their stringency earlier tend to have flatter infection curves, while no aspect of stringency is significantly associated with total infection counts and the overall stringency budget is not associated with any outcome considered. These are presented as associations, not causal effects, in a design the authors acknowledge has a feedback loop between cases and policy.

What carries the argument

The engine of the analysis is canonical amplitude-phase separation for point processes (the procedure of [53]): each state's observed infection process is modelled as a random time warp of a latent point process, the warps are estimated as the optimal transport maps from each state's smoothed intensity to the empirical Frechet mean in the Wasserstein metric, and the transport maps themselves become the phase scores while the registered processes are the amplitude. On top of this, Wasserstein tangent-space PCA linearises the space of densities through their quantile functions, so the principal component scores carry two transparent readings: the first component is an overall time shift (when the wave, or the restrictions, happened), and the second contrasts lower against upper quantiles, that is, flatness versus spikiness of the curve. These scores, plus the total case count and the stringency budget, are the inputs to a vector-on-vector regression whose joint significance is assessed with the Pillai test.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the regression after first removing the second eigenfunction of the registered log-count curves (the 11% mode the paper itself documents) or after allowing the latent process to have more than one amplitude dimension; if the negative association between restriction timing and infection flatness weakens, disappears, or changes sign, the headline result is an artifact of the time-warping assumption rather than a genuine policy signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that phase variation, the temporal dynamics of the pandemic, usually treated as a nuisance to be registered away, is the carrier of the policy-relevant signal in COVID-19 infection data. Using the point-process registration of [53] and Wasserstein tangent-space PCA, the first principal component of the stringency curves acts as an overall time shift of restrictions, and the regression finds a significant negative association between this time shift and the flatness component of the infection curves: earlier stringency goes with flatter first-wave case curves, and later stringency with more spiked ones. In the model with control variables, higher population density is associated with higher total cases and higher GDP with earlier infection increases, but no aspect of stringency is significantly associated with total infection counts, and a likelihood-ratio test (p-value about 0.2) finds no joint evidence that the stringency budget or its timing contributes to the total-count response. The paper is explicit that these are associations in an observational design with a feedback loop between cases and restrictions, and that the point-process model is an idealisation the data only approximately satisfy.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis rests on the assumption that every state's infection curve is one shared underlying pattern stretched and squeezed in time, so that after undoing those time changes the only differences left among states are in size; because the paper itself finds a second pattern of variation (11% of the variance) that this assumption cannot produce, the time-adjustment scores driving the main result could be measuring the wrong thing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the association is correct, evaluations of pandemic policy should record when restrictions were imposed relative to the local epidemic clock, separately from how strict or how cumulative they were, because only the timing dimension shows a significant association.
  • The phase component of infection curves is not noise to be discarded: discarding it would throw away exactly the variation that carries the clearest policy relationship.
  • Analyses that summarise policy by average or cumulative stringency alone would find no association, and would wrongly conclude that non-pharmaceutical measures did not matter.
  • The WTPCA-plus-total-mass scheme gives applied researchers a template for putting naturally distribution-valued covariates (age, income, exposure) into ordinary multivariate regression while keeping a transport-based interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the paper does not run: delete the 11% second eigenfunction from the registered curves before computing phase scores and re-fit the regression; a stable coefficient would show the timing-flatness result does not depend on the Cox-process assumption the paper itself rejects.
  • The results imply a simple, checkable surrogate, days from first local cases to first major restrictions, should reproduce the negative association with curve flatness in the same public data; if it does not, the Wasserstein phase score encodes something extra that the simple proxy misses.
  • Because restriction timing and infection timing are read from the same state-specific clock, part of the association may run from the epidemic to the policy (states hit earlier locked down earlier); the paper's observational design cannot separate that direction from the reverse, so the headline is best read as a description of co-movement between policy timing and curve shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes daily COVID-19 infection counts in the 50 US states during the first wave, viewed as realizations of a point process with random time warping. Using Panaretos and Zemel's amplitude-phase separation, Wasserstein tangent-space PCA on the infection and stringency densities, and a vector-on-vector regression with total cases and infection PC scores as responses, the authors report that earlier implementation of restrictions is associated with flatter infection curves, while no aspect of stringency is significantly associated with total infection counts and the overall stringency budget is not significantly associated with the outcomes considered.

Significance. If the phase scores measure the intended temporal dynamics, the paper provides a credible and interpretable application of recent optimal-transport tools to a policy-relevant question, and it introduces a general distribution-on-distribution regression workflow with external covariates. The authors' care is visible in the MANOVA testing, regression diagnostics, added-variable plots, stability checks, and a self-contained consistency proof (Proposition 1). The manuscript is also reproducible via the provided repository. However, the central empirical claim rests on the assumption that the estimated warps and PC scores faithfully separate timing from intensity; this assumption is challenged both by the paper's own evidence that the Cox point-process model is not the right model for infection counts and by the onset-aligned window construction, which may induce a mechanical association between stringency timing and case-curve flatness.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 4] The paper itself states, in the paragraph accompanying Figure 4, that the FPCA of the registered log-count curves shows a second eigenfunction explaining 11% of the variance, and concludes that 'the Cox point process model adopted, for example, by Gajardo and Müller is arguably not the right model for infection counts.' Since the phase scores used as regression inputs are estimated under exactly this Cox-process registration model, the misspecification directly bears on the validity of the headline association between Stringency PC1 and Case PC2. The authors need to show that the estimated warps are still consistent for the true warps under a more general model, or to re-estimate the phase component with a registration method that does not require the rank-one Cox structure. Without such evidence, the temporal interpretation of the phase scores in Table 1 is not established.
  2. [Section 2, Section 4.3] Each state's first-wave window is defined as 21 days before the day cumulative cases reach 10 per million. This onset-based alignment creates a built-in coupling between the 'timing' of stringency and the 'flatness' of the case curve: a state with slower early growth reaches the threshold later in calendar time, has more pre-threshold calendar days available for enacting restrictions, and tends to have a flatter case density, while a fast-growing state has fewer such days and a more peaked density. The negative coefficient of Stringency PC1 on Case PC2 in Table 1 (full model: -0.35, SE 0.17; MANOVA p=0.015 in Table 2) may therefore reflect the growth rate used to define the window rather than a genuine policy association. The stability checks in Section 4.3 vary bandwidths and window lengths but do not remove the onset-based alignment; a common-calendar analysis, or a version using a fixed calendar window for all states, is needed to break this mechanical coupling.
  3. [Section 4.3, first paragraph] The statement that 'the most important qualitative conclusions ... are quite robust and can be reached regardless of the specific choices, as long as the core first wave time window is included' is not substantiated by any reported results in the paper. The stability analysis is described only verbally; the repository is said to contain the scripts, but the paper itself reports no tables or figures showing, for example, the range of coefficients on Stringency PC1 across different bandwidths, window lengths, or control sets. Given that the central claim depends on the stability of this coefficient, the authors should present the actual stability-check results in the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The table header includes a stray space in 'T able 1'; also, the significance codes and the formatting of the p-value column should be made consistent between the submodel and the full model.
  2. [Section 4, first paragraph] The phrase 'As an initial exploratory step, we perform FPCA on the smoothed, registered, and log-transformed infection count curves' should specify that the analysis is on the registered curves, since Figure 4 is also used to argue against the Cox-model assumption.
  3. [Section 4.1, last paragraph] The sentence beginning 'How many components to retain is largely settled in the case of the stringency index' is followed by a discussion of infection counts; for clarity, the authors should state explicitly that the decision to retain exactly two components for both variables is a modelling choice, not driven by a hard threshold.
  4. [Appendix A, Figure A.1] The score plot in Figure A.1 includes the District of Columbia, while the main analysis excludes it; the figure caption should note this difference to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 2, paragraph on controls] The authors note that the Democratic vote share variable 'was ultimately dropped as unimportant,' but no diagnostic or test is shown to support this decision; a brief example of the sensitivity to including this control would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline result is an estimated association, not a quantity forced by the paper's definitions or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required for this review: the headline association is an estimated regression coefficient from Eq. (4.2)/Table 1, not a quantity constructed from the inputs. The WTPCA scores and total masses are computed from smoothed infection and stringency densities, and the vector-on-vector regression relates them empirically; no equation makes, for example, the Stringency PC1 coefficient equal to a function of Case PC2 by definition. The state-specific first-wave windows anchored at 21 days before 10 cumulative cases per million do create a shared time origin, and the skeptic's concern that this mechanically couples 'early stringency' with 'flat cases' through the growth rate used to define the window is a genuine confounding or identification worry; but it is a critique of causal or mechanical validity, not a demonstration that the claimed result reduces to its own inputs. The consistency result in Proposition 1 is proved within the paper, and the canonical separation results are cited from Panaretos and Zemel, which is external, non-overlapping work, not a self-citation chain. The internal FPCA diagnostic in Figure 4 actually argues against the Cox-process model rather than assuming it. No circular step can be exhibited with a quotation and a specific equation-level reduction, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The main free parameters are the two smoothing bandwidths, the first-wave window definition, the number of retained PCs, and the data-exclusion choices. The central axioms are the point-process warping model and the i.i.d. assumption across states, both of which are acknowledged as imperfect. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the latent intensity and warps are standard model constructs.

free parameters (6)
  • infection smoother bandwidth h = 14 days
    Gaussian Nadaraya-Watson smoother bandwidth for case count curves; chosen by hand, affects registration and scores.
  • stringency density bandwidth h = 14 days
    lpdensity local quadratic bandwidth for stringency; chosen by hand, affects stringency PCs.
  • first-wave window = 120 days from 21 days before 10 cumulative cases per million
    Defines the time domain for each state; affects alignment and phase shifts.
  • number of WTPC components retained = 2
    Retained for both infections and stringency; rank-3 better approximates edges (Figure 7), but authors argue conclusions unchanged.
  • exclusion of District of Columbia
    Excluded as obvious outlier and leverage point (Section 4.3).
  • exclusion of Democratic vote share control
    Dropped as unimportant after initial consideration (Section 2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Panaretos-Zemel registration assumptions: E[phi(x)]=x and phi increasing almost surely
    Section 3.2; the unbiasedness fixes average time scale, monotonicity rules out time reversal; both required for canonical separation.
  • domain assumption State infection count curves are i.i.d. realisations of a common warped point process
    Section 2 and Section 4.3; the authors themselves say this is 'presumably not satisfied', with residual checks showing no spatial patterns.
  • domain assumption Smoothed daily counts converge to the true intensity of the point process
    Section 2; smoothing with h=14 treats recording noise and delay, but assumes bias is negligible.
  • domain assumption Stringency index values can be treated as a measure comparable to the infection density on the same time window
    Section 2; scaling and smoothing the index into a density; interpretation as a 'stringency budget'.
  • standard math Finite rank R variability of T-id in tangent space
    Proposition 1 assumes finite rank for consistency proof; in application, truncation at 2 PCs.
  • standard math Multivariate normality of regression errors
    Vector-on-vector regression likelihood and Pillai test assume Gaussian errors; QQ plots in Appendix B show approximate normality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Amplitude-Phase Analysis of the COVID-19 Point Process and the Early Countermeasures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKF74RKX

@misc{pith2026260809684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Amplitude-Phase Analysis of the COVID-19 Point Process and the Early Countermeasures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKF74RKX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09684}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how governmental restrictions relate to the spread and temporal dynamics of COVID-19 early in the pandemic. We model daily infection data from each US state as realisations of a point process, taking the random intensity measure to be the latent object of interest and, crucially, allowing these realisations to vary not only in magnitude but also in the temporal dynamics. By non-parametrically separating these amplitude and phase variations, we examine how government restrictions relate to each source of variability, relating the infection curves to the Oxford Stringency Index, which we treat as a measure on the same time window. Employing Wasserstein PCA, we analyse the temporal variability of both the infections and the restrictions. We then use the resulting scores, together with the scalars representing the overall stringency budget and the total infection count, as inputs to a linear vector-on-vector regression model. Our findings suggest that, when considering the separate contributions of amplitude and phase variability, earlier implementation of restrictions is associated with flatter infection curves. By contrast, we do not find significant evidence of an association between stringency and total infection counts, nor between the overall stringency budget and the infection outcomes considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Amplitude and Phase variation in functional data: samples obtained by additive perturbation of the mean (left), time-warping of the mean (center), and both effects entangled (right). We attempt to address the OECD call by employing methodologies from the areas of func￾tional data analysis [60, 32] and statistical optimal transport [63, 54]. Functional data analysis concerns the inference of a random process given mu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cumulative infection counts per million inhabitants (left) and Oxford Stringency Index (right) for the fifty US states since 21 days before the time when the cumulative infection counts reached 10 per million inhabitants in a given state. Five states are highlighted in colour for easy comparison between the figures. Stringency Index [30], a comprehensive metric averaging nine policy indicators that encompass various… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time periods pertinent to the first wave of COVID-19 for each US state. method is preferred to the traditional kernel density estimator near the boundaries of the analysis window, where the latter may require additional corrections [70, 11]. The data are subsequently evaluated across a discrete, evenly spaced grid between the initial time, ti (here the onset of the first wave of the pandemic), and the final time tf … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FPCA of the registered infection daily counts (on log scale). From left to right, the plots show the log transform of registered counts, and the first and second PC eigenfunctions, which explain 82 % and 11 % of the variance respectively. The results are shown in [PIT…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wasserstein PCA of the infection counts and the Stringency Index. Left: quantiles and eigenfunctions for infection counts (top three panels) and for the Stringency Index (bottom three panels). Right: PC scores for infection counts (top) and Stringency Index (bottom). T…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interpreting scores of Wasserstein PCA. The top row shows the mean quantile function of the stringency index (dashed) plus/minus constant times the 1st (left) and 2nd (right) eigenfunctions of the stringency index. The bottom row shows the same on the level of densitie…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: WTPCA quantile projections of infection count curves. Left: rank two. Right: rank three. 4.3 Stability Analysis and Potential Deficiencies The data analysis in the previous section naturally depends on several judgement calls we needed to make. These include the rules …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Savaré, G

    Ambrosio, L., Gigli, N. and Savaré, G. (2008)Gradient Flows in Metric Spaces and in the Space of Probability Measures, 2nd ed.Springer. 18

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    and Scherr, S

    Arendt, F., Markiewitz, A., Mestas, M. and Scherr, S. (2020) Covid-19 pandemic, gov- ernment responses, and public mental health: Investigating consequences through crisis hotline calls in two countries.Social Science & Medicine,265, 113532

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Barratt, L. A. and Aston, J. A. (2025) Exploring spatiotemporal variation in covid-19 waves: Non-euclidean spatially aware functional registration.The Annals of Applied Statis- tics,19, 3261–3281

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    and Oeppen, J

    Bergeron-Boucher, M.-P., Canudas-Romo, V. and Oeppen, J. (2020) A three-component approach to model and forecast age-at-death distributions. InForecasting Mortality in Developed Countries, 105–128. Springer

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    and López, A

    Bigot, J., Gouet, R., Klein, T. and López, A. (2017) Geodesic PCA in the Wasserstein space by convex PCA.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, Probabilités et Statistiques, 53, 1–26

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Uncovering the Dynamics of the Wealth Distribution

    Blanchet, T. (2022) Uncovering the dynamics of the wealth distribution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15509

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    (2000)Linear processes in function spaces: theory and applications, vol

    Bosq, D. (2000)Linear processes in function spaces: theory and applications, vol. 149. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    G., Basellini, U

    Camarda, C. G., Basellini, U. and Bergeron-Boucher, M.-P. (2024) A bayesian model for age at death with cohort effects.Demographic Research,51, 1017–1058

    work page 2024

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    and Wong, T.-K

    Campbell, S. and Wong, T.-K. L. (2025) Efficient convex pca with applications to wasser- stein gpca and ranked data.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics,34, 540– 551

    2025

  2. [10]

    and Wang, J.-L

    Carroll, C., Bhattacharjee, S., Chen, Y., Dubey, P., Fan, J., Gajardo, Á., Zhou, X., Müller, H.-G. and Wang, J.-L. (2020) Time dynamics of COVID-19.Scientific Reports,10, 21040

    2020

  3. [11]

    and Ma, X

    Cattaneo, M., Jansson, M. and Ma, X. (2020) Simple local polynomial density estimators. Journal of the American Statistical Association,115, 1449–1455

    2020

  4. [12]

    and Papadakis, N

    Cazelles, E., Seguy, V., Bigot, J., Cuturi, M. and Papadakis, N. (2018) Geodesic pca versus log-pca of histograms in the wasserstein space.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 40, B429–B456

    2018

  5. [13]

    rep., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    CDC (2007) Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance: Community strategy for pandemic influenza mitigation in the united states.Tech. rep., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. URL:https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_m itigation-sm.pdf

    2007

  6. [14]

    and Panaretos, V

    Chakraborty, A. and Panaretos, V. M. (2021) Functional registration and local variations: Identifiability, rank, and tuning.Bernoulli,27, 1103–1130

    2021

  7. [15]

    and Schoenberg, F

    Chen, B., Shrestha, P., Bertozzi, A., Mohler, G. and Schoenberg, F. (2022) A novel point process model for covid-19: Multivariate recursive hawkes process. InPredicting Pan- demics in a Globally Connected World, Volume 1: Toward a Multiscale, Multidisciplinary Framework throug...

    2022

  8. [16]

    and Deng, X

    Chen, X., Fu, M., Huang, Y. and Deng, X. (2024) Distribution-in-distribution-out regres- sion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.11626

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    and Müller, H.-G

    Chen, Y., Lin, Z. and Müller, H.-G. (2023) Wasserstein regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association,118, 869–882

    2023

  10. [18]

    Davies, J. B. and Shorrocks, A. F. (2000) The distribution of wealth. InHandbook of Income Distribution, vol. 1, 605–675. Elsevier

    2000

  11. [19]

    Dey, A., Wang, H. et al. (2016) Vaccine epidemiology: A review.Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care,5, 7–15

    2016

  12. [20]

    and Rodríguez-Cortés, F

    Dong, Z., Zhu, S., Xie, Y., Mateu, J. and Rodríguez-Cortés, F. J. (2023) Non-stationary spatio-temporal point process modeling for high-resolution covid-19 data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics,72, 368–386

    2023

  13. [21]

    and Cazelles, E

    Erell, G., Bigot, J. and Cazelles, E. (2026) Pca of probability measures: Sparse and dense sampling regimes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02190. 19

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    and Decerf, B

    Ferreira, F., Sterck, S., Mahler, D. and Decerf, B. (2021) Death and destitution: The global distribu- tion of welfare losses from the covid-19 pandemic.LSE Public Policy Review,1, 2

    2021

  15. [23]

    P., Hernán, M

    Fox, M. P., Hernán, M. A. et al. (2025) Emulating target trials of postexposure vaccines using observational data.American Journal of Epidemiology,194, 2037–2050

    2025

  16. [24]

    and Müller, H.-G

    Gajardo, Á. and Müller, H.-G. (2021) Cox point process regression.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,68, 1133–1156

    2021

  17. [25]

    — (2023) Point process models for covid-19 cases and deaths.Journal of Applied Statistics, 50, 2294–2309

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gavin, K. (2020) Flattening the curve for covid-19: What does it mean and how can you help? URL:https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/flattening -curve-for-COVID-19-what-does-it-mean-and-how-can-you-help

    2020

  19. [27]

    and Panaretos, V

    Ghodrati, L. and Panaretos, V. M. (2022) Distribution-on-distribution regression via opti- mal transport maps.Biometrika,109, 957–974

    2022

  20. [28]

    and Zhao, G

    Gong, Y. and Zhao, G. (2022) Wealth, health, and beyond: Is COVID-19 less likely to spread in rich neighborhoods?PLOS ONE,17, e0267487

    2022

  21. [29]

    and Senbet, L

    Guedhami, O., Knill, A., Megginson, W. and Senbet, L. W. (2023) Economic impact of covid-19 across national boundaries: The role of government responses.Journal of International Business Studies,54, 1278–1297

    2023

  22. [30]

    Hale, T., Angrist, N., Goldszmidt, R., Kira, B., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., Webster, S., Cameron-Blake, E., Hallas, L., Majumdar, S. et al. (2021) A global panel database of pandemic policies (oxford covid-19 government response tracker).Nature human behaviour, 5, 529–538

    2021

  23. [31]

    and Greven, S

    Happ, C. and Greven, S. (2018) Multivariate functional principal component analysis for data observed on different (dimensional) domains.Journal of the American Statistical Association,113, 649–659

    2018

  24. [32]

    and Eubank, R

    Hsing, T. and Eubank, R. (2015)Theoretical Foundations of Functional Data Analysis, With An Introduction to Linear Operators. John Wiley & Sons

    2015

  25. [33]

    and Prastyo, D

    Indriani, D., Napitupulu, H., Sutikno, S. and Prastyo, D. D. (2024) Inhomogeneous log- gaussian cox processes with piecewise constant covariates for covid-19 transmission risk. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment,38, 2891–2901

    2024

  26. [34]

    URL:https: //coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

    Johns Hopkins University (2020) New cases of covid-19 in world countries. URL:https: //coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases

    2020

  27. [35]

    (2004)Principal component analysis

    Jolliffe, I. (2004)Principal component analysis. 2nd ed.Springer

    2004

  28. [36]

    (1946) Zur spektraltheorie stochastischer prozesse.Ann

    Karhunen, K. (1946) Zur spektraltheorie stochastischer prozesse.Ann. Acad. Sci. Fennicae, AI,34

    1946

  29. [37]

    and McIntosh, C

    Ketokivi, M. and McIntosh, C. N. (2017) Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in operations management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations.Journal of Operations Management,52, 1–14

    2017

  30. [38]

    and Gasser, T

    Kneip, A. and Gasser, T. (1992) Statistical tools to analyze data representing a sample of curves.The Annals of Statistics,20, 1266–1305

    1992

  31. [39]

    and Ramsay, J

    Kneip, A., Li, X., MacGibbon, K. and Ramsay, J. (2000) Curve registration by local regression.Canadian Journal of Statistics,28, 19–29

    2000

  32. [40]

    and Ramsay, J

    Kneip, A. and Ramsay, J. O. (2008) Combining registration and fitting for functional models.Journal of the American Statistical Association,103, 1155–1165

    2008

  33. [41]

    Lee, P. H. (2020) Estimating the real-time case fatality rate of covid-19 using poisson mixtures model.MedRxiv, 2020–04

    2020

  34. [42]

    Li, S., Wang, L., Chen, X., Fang, Y.andSong, Y.(2021)Understandingthespreadofcovid- 19 epidemic: A spatio-temporal point process view.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13097. 20

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    and Diggle, P

    Li, Z., Rodrigues, A. and Diggle, P. J. (2023) Non-stationary spatio-temporal point process modeling for high-resolution covid-19 data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics),72, 368–392

    2023

  36. [44]

    (1948) Functions aleatoires du second ordre.Processus stochastique et mouve- ment Brownien, 366–420

    Loeve, M. (1948) Functions aleatoires du second ordre.Processus stochastique et mouve- ment Brownien, 366–420

    1948

  37. [45]

    Lovell, M. C. (1963) Seasonal adjustment of economic time series and multiple regression analysis.Journal of the American Statistical Association,58, 993–1010

    1963

  38. [46]

    and Bibby, J

    Mardia, K., Kent, J. and Bibby, J. (1979)Multivariate Analysis.Academic Press

    1979

  39. [47]

    S., Ramsay, J

    Marron, J. S., Ramsay, J. O., Sangalli, L. M. and Srivastava, A. (2015) Functional data analysis of amplitude and phase variation.Statistical Science,30, 468–484

    2015

  40. [48]

    and Kelley, K

    Maxwell, S., Delaney, H. and Kelley, K. (2017)Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective, Third Edition.Routledge

    2017

  41. [49]

    (1909) Xvi

    Mercer, J. (1909) Xvi. functions of positive and negative type, and their connection the theory of integral equations.Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series A, containing papers of a mathematical or physical character,209, 415–446

    1909

  42. [50]

    (2018) Self-exciting point processes.Statistical Science,33, 327–329

    Meyer, S. (2018) Self-exciting point processes.Statistical Science,33, 327–329

    2018

  43. [51]

    and Kirsch, T

    Miller-Hooks, E., Tariverdi, M., Prentiss, D. and Kirsch, T. (2022) A flatter curve affords hospitals greater time to prepare for a pandemic surge.Healthcare Analytics,2, 100076

    2022

  44. [52]

    rep., OECD Publishing, Paris

    OECD (2022) First lessons from government evaluations of COVID-19 responses: A syn- thesis.Tech. rep., OECD Publishing, Paris

    2022

  45. [53]

    Panaretos, V. M. and Zemel, Y. (2016) Amplitude and phase variation of point processes. The Annals of Statistics,44, 771–812

    2016

  46. [54]

    SpringerBriefs in Probability and Mathematical Statistics

    — (2020)An Invitation to Statistics in Wasserstein Space. SpringerBriefs in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Cham: Springer

    2020

  47. [55]

    and Beraha, M

    Pegoraro, M. and Beraha, M. (2022) Projected statistical methods for distributional data on the real line with the wasserstein metric.Journal of Machine Learning Research,23, 1–59

    2022

  48. [56]

    and Müller, H.-G

    Petersen, A. and Müller, H.-G. (2016) Functional data analysis for density functions by transformation to a Hilbert space.The Annals of Statistics,44, 183–218

    2016

  49. [57]

    and Kokoszka, P

    Petersen, A., Zhang, C. and Kokoszka, P. (2022) Modeling probability density functions as data objects.Econometrics and Statistics,21, 159–178

    2022

  50. [58]

    R Foun- dation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

    R Core Team (2026)R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foun- dation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL:https://www.R-project.org/

    2026

  51. [59]

    and Silverman, B

    Ramsay, J. and Silverman, B. (2002)Applied functional data analysis: methods and case studies, vol. 77. Springer

    2002

  52. [60]

    Ramsay, J. O. and Silverman, B. W. (2005)Functional data analysis. Springer, New York

    2005

  53. [61]

    (2018) A review of self-exciting spatio-temporal point processes and their applications.Statistical Science,33, 299–318

    Reinhart, A. (2018) A review of self-exciting spatio-temporal point processes and their applications.Statistical Science,33, 299–318

    2018

  54. [62]

    Roberts, M. R. and Whited, T. M. (2013) Endogeneity in empirical corporate finance. In Handbook of the Economics of Finance, vol. 2, 493–572. Elsevier

    2013

  55. [63]

    (2015)Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians: Calculus of Vari- ations, PDEs, and Modeling, vol

    Santambrogio, F. (2015)Optimal Transport for Applied Mathematicians: Calculus of Vari- ations, PDEs, and Modeling, vol. 87 ofProgress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications. Cham: Birkhäuser

    2015

  56. [64]

    Seber, G. A. and Lee, A. J. (2003)Linear regression analysis. John Wiley & Sons

    2003

  57. [65]

    and Marron, J

    Srivastava, A., Wu, W., Kurtek, S., Klassen, E. and Marron, J. S. (2011) Registration of functional data using fisher-rao metric.arXiv preprint arXiv:1103.3817

    2011 arXiv

  58. [66]

    URL:https://bookofthestates.org

    The Council of State Governments (2020) State election results and partisan composition data. URL:https://bookofthestates.org

    2020

  59. [67]

    URL: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data

    The New York Times (2021) Coronavirus (covid-19) data in the united states. URL: https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data. 21

    2021

  60. [68]

    Bureau of Economic Analysis (2020) Gross domestic product by state, 2019

    U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2020) Gross domestic product by state, 2019. URL: https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-state-4th-quarter-and -annual-2019

    2020

  61. [69]

    Census Bureau (2020) Annual estimates of the resident population

    U.S. Census Bureau (2020) Annual estimates of the resident population. March 2020 release

    2020

  62. [70]

    and Jones, M

    Wand, M. and Jones, M. (1995)Kernel Smoothing.New York: Chapman & Hall, CRC

    1995

  63. [71]

    and Srivastava, A

    Zhang, Z., Xie, Q. and Srivastava, A. (2015) Elastic registration and shape analysis of functional objects. InGeometry Driven Statistics(eds. I. L. Dryden and J. T. Kent), 218–238. John Wiley & Sons. 22 A Functional PCA PCA provides the most prominent data-driven dimension red...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.