Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Iterative detection of global factors near the BBP phase transition

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Eigenvector shape, not just eigenvalue size, reveals hidden financial factors

desk verdict The PR filter may be inert in the BH simulations — the real work is the iterative MP recalibration read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06908 v1 pith:X5YZ5S7H submitted 2026-07-08 q-fin.ST

Andrés García-Medina This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.ST
keywords factorsglobalnumberfactornearseparationtransitioncorrelation
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

In high-dimensional finance, the number of driving factors in a market is hard to pin down: when the count of assets is comparable to the count of observations, weak factors sink into the noise and standard spectral tests lose power. This paper proposes that the geometric spread of an eigenvector across the asset universe carries information that eigenvalues alone miss. The author proves that in the Brown-Harding factor model, the leading market factor spreads uniformly across all assets (participation ratio approaching the maximum), while weak factors and pure noise eigenvectors settle at a benchmark ratio of one-third. By iteratively recalibrating the noise boundary and filtering for eigenvectors that are sufficiently spread out rather than concentrated on a few assets, the proposed IGF algorithm recovers the true factor count in simulations where eigenvalue-only methods fail. Applied to S&P 500 returns, it detects a median of seven factors, far more dynamic than the single factor found by the state-of-the-art Onatski test.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three moving parts. First, an iterative noise recalibration: at each step, the effective noise variance is estimated from the median of remaining eigenvalues relative to the median of the Marchenko-Pastur distribution, producing an adaptive upper spectral edge. Second, a participation-ratio filter: candidate eigenvectors must exceed a threshold (PR/p >= 0.3) to confirm they are spread across many assets rather than localized. Third, the Brown-Harding factor model provides the theoretical backbone, with Harding's sample-eigenvalue corrections describing how weak factors emerge from the noise edge above a critical dimension p_c. The combination of spectral separation plus eig

What would settle it

If empirical financial correlation matrices have eigenvector PR distributions that do not cluster near 1/3 for noise components (for example, due to sector clustering or heavy-tailed distributions), the tau = 0.3 threshold would misclassify localized noise eigenvectors as global factors or vice versa.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the participation ratio (PR) of an eigenvector, which measures how many assets it meaningfully touches. The paper proves two asymptotic limits for the Brown-Harding factor model: the leading coherent eigenvector satisfies PR(u1)/p approaching 1 (fully extended), while weak-factor and noise eigenvectors satisfy PR(u)/p approaching 1/3 (random delocalization). These distinct limits create a separability criterion at the eigenvector level. The IGF algorithm exploits this by combining iterative noise-edge recalibration with a PR threshold at tau = 0.3, retaining only eigenvalues that both separate from the noise bulk and have extended eigenvectors. In simulations near the B

Load-bearing premise

The operational threshold tau = 0.3 is calibrated on a synthetic model with isotropic noise and then applied directly to real S&P 500 data. If actual financial returns have stronger cross-sectional correlations or heteroscedasticity than the model assumes, the threshold may not transfer cleanly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Portfolio construction could benefit from richer factor structure: if seven rather than one factor drive returns, risk models built on single-factor assumptions may systematically underestimate diversification breakdowns during stress periods.
  • The PR/p = 1/3 benchmark for real-delocalized eigenvectors provides a model-free diagnostic that could be applied to any high-dimensional correlation matrix, not just financial ones.
  • The iterative recalibration logic could be extended to detect subcritical factors that remain entirely inside the Marchenko-Pastur bulk, where no eigenvalue separation exists but eigenvector structure may still differ from pure noise.
  • Regime-change detection in markets could use the fluctuating factor count (4 to 14 across windows) as a real-time indicator of structural shifts in the economy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the PR threshold transfers across asset classes or markets, the 1/3 benchmark may serve as a universal constant for real-valued noise eigenvectors, making the method applicable beyond equities to credit, options, or macroeconomic panel data.
  • The gap between the seven-factor IGF result and the one-factor Onatski result may partly reflect a systematic bias in eigenvalue-only tests: they are calibrated for strong factors and may have low power against the weak-factor regime that dominates real markets.
  • The synthetic calibration approach (matching BH model dimensions to empirical ones to set tau) could be generalized into a principled framework for parameter selection in other random-matrix-based detection problems where analytical thresholds are unavailable.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes an iterative global factor (IGF) algorithm for detecting the number of global factors in high-dimensional correlation matrices, with a focus on the regime near the Baik–Ben Arous–Péché (BBP) phase transition. The method combines two ingredients: (i) adaptive Marčenko–Pastur (MP) edge recalibration, in which the effective noise variance is re-estimated from the residual spectrum at each step using a median-based estimator, and (ii) a participation-ratio (PR) delocalization filter that retains only eigenvectors with PR/p above a threshold τ. The author derives asymptotic PR benchmarks for the Brown–Harding (BH) factor model: the leading coherent eigenvector satisfies PR(u₁)/p → 1, while weak-factor and idiosyncratic eigenvectors satisfy PR(u)/p → 1/3. Monte Carlo simulations of the BH model show that IGF recovers the true factor count near the BBP transition where the Onatski test, Tracy–Widom criterion, and MP upper-edge criterion fail. The method is then applied to S&P 500 returns, detecting a median of 7 factors across moving windows.

Significance. The paper addresses a well-motivated problem at the intersection of random matrix theory and financial econometrics. The derivation of PR benchmarks for the BH factor model (Appendix C) is a clean contribution: the limits PR(u₁)/p → 1 and PR(u_α)/p → 1/3 for weak-factor and idiosyncratic directions are established rigorously for the covariance case and extended to the correlation matrix under a small-coefficient-of-variation approximation. The iterative median-based noise recalibration is a practical and sensible idea. The empirical finding of 7 median factors versus 1 from the Onatski test is potentially interesting for the econophysics community. However, the central novelty claim—that combining spectral separation with eigenvector delocalization improves detection—rests on an untested assumption that the PR filter contributes beyond the spectral recalibration, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. The PR delocalization filter (τ = 0.3) may be inert in the BH simulations, undermining the paper's central novelty claim. The asymptotic results in Sec. III.D and Appendix C show that weak-factor directions and typical idiosyncratic eigenvectors both satisfy PR(u)/p → 1/3. The operational threshold τ = 0.3 is set below 1/3 (Sec. V, Figs. 4–5). In the BH model, which has isotropic noise and dense loadings, there are no localized eigenvectors to filter out: every spectrally separated component will also satisfy the PR criterion. The improvement over eigenvalue-only methods shown in Fig. 3 could therefore be entirely attributable to the iterative MP edge recalibration (Sec. III.C), which adaptively lowers the noise estimate using the residual median. The paper never ablates the PR filter (e.g., by running IGF with τ = 0) to demonstrate that the PR criterion contributes anything beyond the光谱
  2. The calibration of τ = 0.3 involves a degree of circularity. The threshold is calibrated on synthetic BH moving-window data (Figs. 4–5) and then used to detect factors in that same synthetic model (Fig. 6) and in empirical data (Fig. 7). The synthetic recovery in Fig. 6 is somewhat circular by construction: the threshold was chosen to recover the correct count in that specific model. The empirical application is less circular, but it assumes that the empirical data-generating process sufficiently matches the BH model's isotropic noise structure for the threshold to transfer. If real financial data exhibits stronger heteroscedasticity, cross-sectional correlation in the idiosyncratic component, or non-Gaussian tails, the threshold may not be valid. The paper should discuss this transferability assumption more explicitly and, ideally, provide a robustness check with a misspecified noise结构.
  3. The small-CV approximation (CVD ≈ 0.0352) underpinning the extension of PR limits to the correlation matrix (Appendix C.4) is verified only for the specific BH parameters used in the simulations. The approximation D ≈ d₀I is load-bearing for the claim that PR(u_α)/p → 1/3 holds for the correlation matrix. The paper should discuss how sensitive this approximation—and hence the τ = 0.3 threshold—is to the model parameters, and whether CVD values typical of empirical financial data would still satisfy CVD ≪ 1. Without this, the empirical claims rest on an untested assumption.
minor comments (7)
  1. Sec. V: The choice q = 1/2 is stated without much justification beyond matching the simulation regime. A brief discussion of why this particular q is appropriate for the empirical analysis, or how sensitive the results are to q, would be helpful.
  2. Sec. III.E, step 2: The algorithm uses q = p/n rather than q_k = (p−k+1)/n. The text states this is because k is expected to be small relative to p, but for k = 7 and p = 417, the correction is non-negligible. A sensitivity check or justification would strengthen the presentation.
  3. Fig. 3: The vertical dotted line denotes p_c ≈ 252, but Sec. IV states p_c ≈ 317 for the same parameters. These values should be reconciled.
  4. The data availability statement says data are available from the corresponding author upon request. For reproducibility, depositing the code and data in a public repository would strengthen the manuscript.
  5. Sec. III.D, Eq. (25): The statement that idiosyncratic eigenvectors satisfy PR(u_k)/p → 1/3 for k > K is somewhat informal, since the population-level degeneracy means individual eigenvectors are not uniquely defined. The finite-sample argument in Appendix C.3 is reasonable but could be stated more carefully in the main text.
  6. Abstract: The sentence beginning 'A synthetic moving-window calibration matched to the empirical dimensions' is grammatically incomplete.
  7. Sec. II: The description of the Onatski test refers to k₁ and k₂ but does not clearly state how these bounds are chosen in practice for the empirical analysis. Clarifying this would help readers assess the empirical comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity: τ=0.3 is calibrated on synthetic BH data to recover K=4, then the synthetic recovery (Fig. 6) is shown with that same τ; but PR limits and empirical application are independently grounded.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Figures 4-6]
    "Figure 5 shows the number of factors detected by the IGF algorithm as the threshold τ varies over the grid {0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25,0.3,0.35,0.4}. The median count across the m=185 synthetic moving windows recovers the true number of factors at τ≤0.3. [...] Figure 6 shows the detected number of factors in the synthetic moving-window scenario of the Brown–Harding model. The calibrated threshold τ=0.3 is used for the IGF algorithm. The number of factors fluctuates around 4, as expected."

    The threshold τ=0.3 is selected (Fig. 5) precisely because it recovers the true K=4 in the synthetic BH moving-window setting. Then Fig. 6 demonstrates recovery of K=4 using that same τ=0.3 on the same synthetic model. The 'prediction' (recovery of true factor count in simulation) is statistically forced by the calibration step. However, this is a mild form: the calibration is on moving-window dynamics while the PR asymptotic limit (1/3) is derived independently in Appendix C, and the empirical S&P 500 application (Fig. 7) is genuinely out-of-sample. The circularity is confined to the synthetic validation, not the core theoretical results or empirical findings.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical contribution—the PR limits PR(u₁)/p→1 and PR(u)/p→1/3—is derived from first principles in Appendix C via the BH model's loading structure and the law of large numbers, with no circular dependency. The IGF algorithm's spectral recalibration (Sec. III.C) uses a median-based noise estimator motivated by Gavish-Donoho [25], an external citation. The only circular element is that τ=0.3 is calibrated on synthetic BH data to recover K=4 (Fig. 5) and then the synthetic recovery is re-shown with that τ (Fig. 6)—a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, but confined to the simulation validation. The empirical S&P 500 results (median 7 factors) are out-of-sample relative to the calibration. No self-definitional circularity, no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The skeptic's concern about the PR filter being inert in BH simulations is a correctness/ablation issue, not a circularity issue—the paper does not define the filter in terms of its outputs.

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

The paper relies on standard RMT results and the BH factor model. The main free parameter is the PR threshold τ, which is calibrated rather than derived. The small-CV approximation is a load-bearing assumption for the theoretical extension to correlation matrices.

free parameters (3)
  • τ (PR threshold) = 0.3
    Calibrated via synthetic moving-window simulation (Sec. V, Fig. 5) to separate weak factors from noise. Applied to empirical data.
  • k_max (search cutoff) = 15
    Operational upper bound for the sequential search (Sec. IV).
  • q (aspect ratio) = 0.5
    Fixed at p/n = 1/2 for both simulations and empirical analysis (Sec. IV, V).
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Marčenko–Pastur law for bulk eigenvalues
    Used as the null noise distribution for spectral separation (Sec. II, Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption Harding's sample eigenvalue corrections
    Used to characterize the BH factor model eigenvalue limits (Sec. III.A, Eq. 10).
  • domain assumption Isotropic idiosyncratic noise in BH model
    Assumes σ_e^2 I structure, which may not hold in real financial data (Sec. III.A, Eq. 6).
  • ad hoc to paper Small coefficient of variation (CVD ≪ 1)
    Used to approximate the correlation matrix as a scaled identity plus spikes, preserving PR limits (Sec. III.B, Eq. 18).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Iterative detection of global factors near the BBP phase transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5YZ5S7H

@misc{pith2026260706908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Iterative detection of global factors near the BBP phase transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5YZ5S7H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06908}
}
abstract

Detecting the number of global factors in high-dimensional correlation matrices is a central problem in multivariate statistics and random matrix theory, with important implications for asset pricing and econophysics. When the number of variables $p$ is comparable to the number of observations $n$, signal-to-noise separation becomes difficult, especially near the Baik--Ben Arous--P\'ech\'e (BBP) transition, where weak factors may be confused with fluctuations at the Mar\v{c}enko--Pastur spectral edge. In this work, we characterize the participation-ratio (PR) structure of the Brown--Harding (BH) factor model. Under strong common loadings, the leading coherent eigenvector $u_1$ satisfies $\mathrm{PR}(u_1)/p\to 1$, whereas weak-factor directions and typical idiosyncratic sample eigenvectors $u$ satisfy the delocalized benchmark $\mathrm{PR}(u)/p\to 1/3$. These limits motivate an eigenvector-level criterion for retaining extensive directions. We propose an iterative global factor (IGF) algorithm that combines adaptive Mar\v{c}enko--Pastur edge recalibration with a PR delocalization filter. The method iteratively reestimates the effective noise level, tests eigenvalue separation from the residual bulk, and retains only spectrally separated components with sufficiently extended eigenvectors. Monte Carlo simulations of the BH factor model show that IGF recovers the true number of factors near the BBP transition, where eigenvalue-only criteria can fail or remain ambiguous. A synthetic moving-window calibration matched to the empirical dimensions, which is then applied to S\&P 500 returns. IGF detects a richer and more dynamic set of global factors than the Onatski test, with a median count of 7 factors. The results indicate that combining spectral separation with eigenvector delocalization improves the detectability of global-factor estimation in high-dimensional financial correlation matrices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dimension-scaling analysis of the BH factor model. Panel (a) shows the mean of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dimension-scaling behavior of the normalized participation ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dimension-scaling behavior of the estimated number of factors at fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Moving-window mean PR/p profile for the first five sample eigenvectors in the synthetic BH setting calibrated to the empirical dimensions. The window size is fixed at p = 417 with q = 1/2. Dashed lines indicate the bulk mean, the 1/3 real-delocalized benchmark, and the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of the IGF factor count to the participation threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detected number of factors across moving windows in the synthetic BH model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detected number of factors across moving windows in the empirical S&P 500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity of the IGF factor count to the participation threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Measuring the engine of a liquidation cascade: subcritical branching inside a first-order transition

    physics.soc-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The record October 2025 liquidation cascade ran deeply subcritical (branching ratio about 0.1-0.2) within its venue, and the crash transition is first-order rather than critical.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Compute the empirical correlation matrix˜Cand its eigendecomposition ˜C˜uk = ˜λk˜uk, ˜λ1 ≥ ˜λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ ˜λp

    work page

  2. [2]

    Fork= 1,

    Setbrτ = 0. Fork= 1, . . . , k max, estimate the residual noise scale from the remaining spectrum as bσ2 0(k) = median{˜λk, ˜λk+1, . . . ,˜λp} mMP(q; 1) , q= p n ,

    work page

  3. [3]

    Compute the corresponding upper edge, bλ+,k =bσ2 0(k)(1 + √q)2

    work page

  4. [4]

    If ˜λk ≤bλ+,k, stop the sequential search

    work page

  5. [5]

    If PR(˜uk) p ≥τ, update brτ ←brτ + 1

    Otherwise, compute the normalized participation ratio PR(˜uk) p = 1 pPp i=1 ˜u4 ik . If PR(˜uk) p ≥τ, update brτ ←brτ + 1. If the PR condition is not satisfied, do not count the component, but continue with the next value ofk

    work page

  6. [6]

    The sequential search stops when the candidate eigenvalue no longer exceeds the iter- atively estimated Marčenko–Pastur upper edge, or whenkmax is reached

    Returnbrτ. The sequential search stops when the candidate eigenvalue no longer exceeds the iter- atively estimated Marčenko–Pastur upper edge, or whenkmax is reached. Since thePR/p criterion is applied locally to each spectrally separated component and is not necessarily monotone in the eigenvalue rank, the algorithm can accept noncontiguous eigenvalue in...

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Proof ofPR(u 1)/p→1 LetGdenote the limiting normalized Gram matrix of the loadings, G=b 21K1⊤ K +σ 2 bIK,(C5) The leading eigenpair ofGis a1 = 1K√ K , γ 1 =Kb 2 +σ 2 b ,(C6) because Ga1 =γ 1a1.(C7) 24 Then, the leading eigenvalue ofL⊤L d1 ≈p Kb2 +σ 2 b .(C8) On the other hand, the eigenvectors ofLL ⊤ associated with nonzero eigenvalues are obtained from t...

    work page

  8. [8]

    , K Now consider the remaining factor-space directions

    Proof ofPR(u α)→1/3, forα= 2, . . . , K Now consider the remaining factor-space directions. Letaα ∈R K,α= 2, . . . , K, be unit vectors orthogonal to1K, that is, ∥aα∥= 1,1 ⊤ Kaα = 0, α= 2, . . . , K.(C17) 25 Then Gaα =σ 2 baα, α= 2, . . . , K.(C18) Therefore, ifd α denotes the corresponding eigenvalue ofL⊤L, then dα ≈pσ 2 b , α= 2, . . . , K.(C19) Using t...

    work page

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    At the population level, this eigenvalue has multiplicityp−K

    Proof ofPR(u α)→1/3, forα > K Finally, the remaining directions satisfy L⊤uα = 0, α > K.(C27) Hence LL⊤uα = 0.(C28) 26 For the population covariance matrix ΣBH =σ 2 fLL⊤ +σ 2 eIp,(C29) we obtain ΣBHuα =σ 2 euα, α > K.(C30) Therefore, the idiosyncratic eigenspace ofΣBH isNull(L...

  2. [10]

    R. B. Cattell, The scree test for the number of factors, Multivariate behavioral research1, 245 (1966)

    1966

  3. [11]

    Wold, Cross-validatory estimation of the number of components in factor and principal components models, Technometrics20, 397 (1978)

    S. Wold, Cross-validatory estimation of the number of components in factor and principal components models, Technometrics20, 397 (1978)

    1978

  4. [12]

    L. R. Zientek and B. Thompson, Applying the bootstrap to the multivariate case: Bootstrap component/factor analysis, Behavior research methods39, 318 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    H. F. Kaiser, The application of electronic computers to factor analysis, Educational and psychological measurement20, 141 (1960)

    1960

  6. [14]

    Guttman, Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis, Psychometrika19, 149 (1954)

    L. Guttman, Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis, Psychometrika19, 149 (1954). 28

    1954

  7. [15]

    M. L. Mehta,Random matrices, Vol. 142 (Elsevier, 2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Molero-González, J

    L. Molero-González, J. Trinidad-Segovia, M. Sánchez-Granero, and A. García-Medina, Market beta is not dead: An approach from random matrix theory, Finance Research Letters55, 103816 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Onatski, The tracy–widom limit for the largest eigenvalues of singular complex wishart matrices, The Annals of Applied Probability18, 470 (2008)

    A. Onatski, The tracy–widom limit for the largest eigenvalues of singular complex wishart matrices, The Annals of Applied Probability18, 470 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Onatski, Testing hypotheses about the number of factors in large factor models, Economet- rica77, 1447 (2009)

    A. Onatski, Testing hypotheses about the number of factors in large factor models, Economet- rica77, 1447 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Onatski, Determining the number of factors from empirical distribution of eigenvalues, The Review of Economics and Statistics92, 1004 (2010)

    A. Onatski, Determining the number of factors from empirical distribution of eigenvalues, The Review of Economics and Statistics92, 1004 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Bai and S

    J. Bai and S. Ng, Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models, Econo- metrica70, 191 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Onatski, Asymptotics of the principal components estimator of large factor models with weakly influential factors, Journal of Econometrics168, 244 (2012)

    A. Onatski, Asymptotics of the principal components estimator of large factor models with weakly influential factors, Journal of Econometrics168, 244 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    J. Baik, G. Ben Arous, and S. Péché, Phase transition of the largest eigenvalue for nonnull complex sample covariance matrices, Annals of Probability33, 1643 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    I. M. Johnstone, On the distribution of the largest eigenvalue in principal components analysis, The Annals of statistics29, 295 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Baik and J

    J. Baik and J. W. Silverstein, Eigenvalues of large sample covariance matrices of spiked pop- ulation models, Journal of multivariate analysis97, 1382 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Paul, Asymptotics of sample eigenstructure for a large dimensional spiked covariance model, Statistica Sinica , 1617 (2007)

    D. Paul, Asymptotics of sample eigenstructure for a large dimensional spiked covariance model, Statistica Sinica , 1617 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Benaych-Georges and R

    F. Benaych-Georges and R. R. Nadakuditi, The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of finite, low rank perturbations of large random matrices, Advances in Mathematics227, 494 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Benaych-Georges and R

    F. Benaych-Georges and R. R. Nadakuditi, The singular values and vectors of low rank per- turbations of large rectangular random matrices, Journal of Multivariate Analysis111, 120 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    M. C. Harding, Explaining the single factor bias of arbitrage pricing models in finite samples, Economics Letters99, 85 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    S. J. Brown, The number of factors in security returns, the Journal of Finance44, 1247 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    M. C. Harding,Essays in Econometrics and Random Matrix Theory, Ph.d. dissertation, Mas- 29 sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2007), department of Economics

    2007

  23. [31]

    Yeo and G

    J. Yeo and G. Papanicolaou, Random matrix approach to estimation of high-dimensional factor models (2016), arXiv:1611.05571 [math.ST]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    I. M. Johnstone and A. Onatski, Testing in high-dimensional spiked models, The Annals of Statistics48, 1231 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Kritchman and B

    S. Kritchman and B. Nadler, Non-parametric detection of the number of signals: Hypothesis testing and random matrix theory, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing57, 3930 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Gavish and D

    M. Gavish and D. L. Donoho, The optimal hard threshold for singular values is4/ √ 3, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory60, 5040 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Plerou, P

    V. Plerou, P. Gopikrishnan, B. Rosenow, L. A. N. Amaral, and H. E. Stanley, Universal and nonuniversal properties of cross correlations in financial time series, Physical review letters83, 1471 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    T. B. Clark and A. Del Maestro, Moments of the inverse participation ratio for the laplacian on finite regular graphs, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 495003 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    V. A. Marčenko and L. A. Pastur, Distribution of eigenvalues for some sets of random matrices, Mathematics of the USSR-Sbornik1, 457 (1967)

    1967

  30. [38]

    Laloux, P

    L. Laloux, P. Cizeau, J.-P. Bouchaud, and M. Potters, Noise dressing of financial correlation matrices, Physical review letters83, 1467 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    V.Plerou, P.Gopikrishnan, B.Rosenow, L.A.N.Amaral, T.Guhr,andH.E.Stanley,Random matrix approach to cross correlations in financial data, Physical Review E65, 066126 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    C. A. Tracy and H. Widom, Level-spacing distributions and the airy kernel, Communications in Mathematical Physics159, 151 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    I. M. Johnstone, Multivariate analysis and jacobi ensembles: Largest eigenvalue, tracy–widom limits and rates of convergence, Annals of statistics36, 2638 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Forni, M

    M. Forni, M. Hallin, M. Lippi, and L. Reichlin, The generalized dynamic-factor model: Iden- tification and estimation, Review of Economics and statistics82, 540 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    I. M. Johnstone, High dimensional statistical inference and random matrices, inProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians(Madrid, Spain, 2006) pp. 307–333

    2006

  36. [44]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, 30...

    2020

  37. [45]

    W. F. Sharpe, Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk, The journal of finance19, 425 (1964)

    1964

  38. [46]

    E. F. Fama and K. R. French, Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, Journal of financial economics33, 3 (1993)

    1993

  39. [47]

    C. R. Harvey, Y. Liu, and H. Zhu, ... and the cross-section of expected returns, The Review of financial studies29, 5 (2016). 31

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.