Two-Sample Covariance Inference in High-Dimensional Elliptical Models

Nina D\"ornemann

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 34 references

Two-Sample Covariance Inference in High-Dimensional Elliptical Models

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a U-statistic estimator of the squared Frobenius norm of the covariance difference is asymptotically normal under generalized elliptical models, yielding the first two-sample covariance test with level and power…

desk verdict The new CLT under elliptical models is a real contribution, but Lemma A.3 has a genuine gap in the p≫n regime, so the main theorem is not yet proven as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02640 v1 pith:YKH5PH2U submitted 2025-07-03 math.ST math.PRstat.TH

Nina Dörnemann This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.STmath.PRstat.TH MSC 15A1860F1762H15

keywords Centrallimittheoremcovariancematrixellipticalmodelshigh-dimensionalstatisticshypothesistestingtwo-sampletestU-statisticFrobeniusnorm

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 proposes a two-sample test for whether two high-dimensional covariance matrices are equal, under generalized elliptical distributions in which each observation is a common random scale times a uniformly distributed direction. The test statistic is the same U-statistic estimator of the squared Frobenius norm of the covariance difference that Li and Chen introduced for independent component models. The paper's central contribution is a new central limit theorem for this statistic under elliptical data, valid under both the null and the alternative hypotheses, together with a variance estimator that is ratio-consistent under the null. If the theorem is right, this is the first two-sample covariance test with asymptotic level control and power guarantees for elliptical models, and it needs neither sparsity nor any explicit condition on the dimension-to-sample-size ratio. The paper also reports simulations and an S&P 500 application where the proposed test rejects a covariance change that two competing independent-component-based tests miss.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the U-statistic $T_n = U_{n,1} + U_{n,2} - 2V_n$, where each $U_{n,i}$ estimates $\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma_{n,i}^2)$ from one sample and $V_n$ estimates $\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma_{n,1}\Sigma_{n,2})$ from cross-sample inner products, so that $T_n$ unbiasedly estimates $\|\Sigma_{n,1}-\Sigma_{n,2}\|_F^2$. The proof decomposes $T_n$ into martingale differences and computes their conditional variances using mixed moments of elliptical quadratic forms, whose leading term $E[\xi^4]/(p(p+2))$ with the shared radius $\xi$ produces the variance terms with $\tau_i$ in (2.4). A moment bound for centered quadratic forms under the eighth-moment condition on $\xi^2$ verifies the Lindeberg condition, and the trace-product decay in assumption (A3) kills the cross terms.

What would settle it

Simulate two elliptical samples with $p$ large and $n_1=n_2$ moderately large, using covariance matrices with a few dominating spikes, for instance $\Sigma = \operatorname{diag}(p, 1, \ldots, 1)$, so that $\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma^4)$ is comparable to $\operatorname{tr}^2(\Sigma^2)$ and assumption (A3) fails, and inspect whether $(T_n - \|\Sigma_{n,1}-\Sigma_{n,2}\|_F^2)/\sigma_n$ is approximately normal. Alternatively, use an elliptical radius whose squared law is heavier-tailed than the eighth-moment condition permits, such as a scaled $\chi^2_p$ with few degrees of freedom, and record the empirical rejection rate of the proposed test under the null.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is a central limit theorem: if assumptions (A1) through (A3) hold, then $\frac{1}{\sigma_n}(T_n - \|\Sigma_{n,1}-\Sigma_{n,2}\|_F^2)$ converges in distribution to a standard normal random variable, where $\sigma_n^2$ is the explicit variance formula in (2.4). The formula contains terms with $\tau_i$, the limiting variance of $\xi^2/\sqrt{p}$ for the elliptical radius $\xi$ of sample $i$; in the Gaussian case $\tau_i=2$ and the variance collapses to the independent-component formula of Li and Chen, while for other elliptical radii it differs. From this CLT the paper derives two practical guarantees: the test that rejects when $\hat T_n > z_{1-\alpha}$ has asymptotic level $\alpha$ under the null, and it is power-consistent whenever $\|\Sigma_{n,1}-\Sigma_{n,2}\|_F^2/\sigma_n \to \infty$. The test needs no sparsity, no bootstrap, and no explicit condition on the ratio $p/n$.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on assumption (A1), which requires $E|(\xi^2-p)/\sqrt{p}|^8 = o(p^2)$ for the elliptical radius $\xi$, and on assumption (A3), which requires mixed fourth-order traces such as $\operatorname{tr}(\Sigma_i\Sigma_j\Sigma_k\Sigma_l)$ to be of smaller order than the product of the corresponding squared traces; the paper states both conditions but does not verify them in its S&P 500 application.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same test is valid under both independent component models and generalized elliptical models, so a practitioner does not need to decide between the two model classes before testing.
Asymptotic level control and power consistency hold without sparsity assumptions and without any explicit growth condition linking dimension $p$ to the sample sizes, covering regimes with $p$ much larger than $n$.
Under the null the plug-in estimator $\hat\sigma_{n,0}$ is ratio-consistent, so the decision rule uses only a standard normal quantile and needs no bootstrap or tuning parameters.
For Gaussian data the variance formula reduces to the Li-Chen variance, so the new result contains the classical independent-component case; for other elliptical radii the variances differ, which is why independent-component-based tests mis-calibrate under ellipticity.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: Because the test is valid across both model classes without pretesting, its availability weakens the argument for running a goodness-of-fit test for ellipticity first in high-dimensional pipelines, since such pretesting consumes sample information.
Editorial inference: The same variance-correction mechanism—replacing the independent-component variance with a $\tau_i$-dependent expression built from $E[\xi^4]/(p(p+2))$—could plausibly convert other quadratic-form-based tests from independent component models to elliptical models, not only the Li-Chen statistic.
Editorial inference: The S&P 500 finding, if it replicates on other assets and time windows, suggests the test could serve as a change-point diagnostic for portfolio covariance structure without assuming normality or sparsity.
Editorial inference: Since the variance formula involves only second- and fourth-order traces, one could attempt a version based on rank-based or robust scatter estimates, provided the needed quadratic-form moments can be controlled under ellipticity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something genuinely useful: it takes Li and Chen's U-statistic and derives the correct variance and normal limit under generalized elliptical models, where the variance has an extra tau_i term that the independent-component formula misses. That is a real technical contribution, and the paper is honest about what is new and what is borrowed. The proof is detailed, the martingale decomposition is standard and mostly careful, and the imported moment lemmas are cited properly. The numerical study is broad and the comparison against ICM-based tests is informative. I agree with the reader that the central claim is worth taking seriously.

But I cannot join the Accept verdict. The stress-test note is right. Lemma A.3 is load-bearing: it supplies the Lyapunov-type condition that lets the martingale CLT go through. In the proof, the term S_{n,2,2} is dismissed as o(sigma_n^4) by analogy with S_{n,1,2}, and the analogy fails. The best available bound gives only tr^4(C) ≤ p^2 [tr(C^2)]^2, which turns S_{n,2,2} into o(p/n_1) times the same lower bound that makes S_{n,1,2} negligible. When p/n_1 → ∞, e.g. with Sigma_1 = I, Sigma_2 = (1-eta)I, that is not o(1). That configuration satisfies (A1)–(A3), so the gap sits exactly in the regime the abstract advertises: no explicit growth condition on p/n. The theorem may be true, and a sharper fourth-moment expansion might fix it, but as written the proof does not establish it.

Minor issues are minor: the E[xi^p]=p typo, omitted symmetric cases, no code, and the S&P application with n_1=30, n_2=22, p=434 is far below any asymptotic regime. None of those matter next to the Lemma A.3 gap.

Who should read this: anyone working on high-dimensional covariance testing or elliptical models. It deserves a serious referee, because the claim is important and the gap looks fixable, but it should not be accepted until Lemma A.3 is repaired. I would not cite the main theorem in its current form, though I would happily bring the paper to a reading group to see whether the proof can be patched.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. Summary: The paper develops a two-sample test for equality of high-dimensional covariance matrices under generalized elliptical models (EM). The test statistic T_n is the U-statistic estimator of the squared Frobenius norm ||Σ_{n,1}−Σ_{n,2}||_F^2 introduced by Li and Chen (2012) for independent component models. The central theoretical result, Theorem 2.1, asserts that under assumptions (A1)–(A3), (T_n − ||Σ_{n,1}−Σ_{n,2}||_F^2)/σ_n converges in distribution to a standard normal, with σ_n^2 given in (2.4), and no explicit growth condition on p/n. Proposition 2.2 establishes ratio consistency of the null variance estimator, Corollary 2.3 gives asymptotic level control, and Theorem 2.4 gives power consistency. The proofs use a martingale decomposition of T_n, conditional variance computations (Lemmas A.1–A.2), and a fourth-moment Lindeberg condition (Lemma A.3). Simulations compare the method against LRT, DHW, SY, and ZZPZ across five elliptical distributions and three covariance structures, and an application to S&P 500 quarterly returns is reported.

Significance. If the main result holds, the paper delivers the first two-sample covariance test with level and power guarantees under generalized elliptical models, filling a clear gap between the ICM literature and elliptical models; the absence of growth conditions on p/n is a genuinely attractive feature. The manuscript is commendable for the transparency of its proof architecture (explicit martingale differences, separated treatment of the lower-order U-statistic terms, ratio-consistent variance estimation), for the variance formula (2.4) reducing correctly to the normal-case variance when τ_i = 2, and for a substantial simulation study covering five distributions and spiked/Toeplitz/bulk-eigenvalue structures. However, the verification of the Lindeberg-type condition in Lemma A.3 contains a genuine gap that is load-bearing for Theorem 2.1 exactly in the p ≫ n regime, so the significance claim is conditional on a successful repair of that proof step (see Major Comment 1).

major comments (2)

[Appendix A.1.1 (Proof of Lemma A.3)] This is the load-bearing issue. In the proof of Lemma A.3, the deterministic part of the fourth-moment bound is S_{n,2,2} = (1/n_1^4) o(1/p) Σ_{k=1}^{n1} tr^4(Σ_1(Σ_1−Σ_2)), and the text asserts 'similarly to S_{n,1,2}' that S_{n,2,2} = o(σ_n^4). The analogy fails: for S_{n,1,2} = n_1^{-3} tr^2(Σ_1Δ)^2, the lower bound σ_n^4 ≥ c n_1^{-2} tr^2(Σ_1Δ)^2 (from the term 8 n_1^{-1} tr{Σ_1Δ}^2 in (2.4)) absorbs the extra n_1^{-1}; for S_{n,2,2}, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality |tr(Σ_1Δ)| ≤ √p·(tr(Σ_1Δ)^2)^{1/2} yields only S_{n,2,2} ≤ o(p/n_1)·σ_n^4, which is not o(σ_n^4) when p/n_1 → ∞. The configuration Σ_1 = I_p, Σ_2 = (1−η)I_p with n_1 = n_2 and p/n_1 → ∞ satisfies (A1)–(A3) and has tr^4(Σ_1Δ) = η^4 p^4, so the displayed bound cannot establish the lemma in the advertised no-growth-on-p/n regime. The root cause is Lemma B.2 (imported from Wang and Lopes, 2025): for C = ηI, its second term o(1/p)tr^4(CΣ) is of order o(η^4 p^3), which can dominate the first term tr^2((CΣ)^2) = η^4 p^2, whereas the actual fourth moment of x^T Cx − tr C is of order η^4 p^2 in the light-tailed cases (e.g., χ^2_p radii) permitted by (A1); the crudeness of the trace-power term is exactly what breaks the subsequent bound. Since Lemma A.3 provides the conditional Lindeberg condition in the martingale CLT (Billingsley, Theorem 18.1) used to conclude Theorem 2.1, the proof of the main theorem is incomplete exactly in the regime the paper emphasizes. The gap appears fixable by a sharper fourth-moment expansion that keeps the deterministic Δ = Σ_1 − Σ_2 component inside the tr^2((CΣ)^2)-type term instead of bounding its trace by a power of p; the authors should supply such an argument (or a strengthened version of Lemma B.2) and re-verify Lemma A.3, including the k > n_1 case and the question of whether the stated eighth-moment condition in (A1) suffices once the expansion is sharpened.
[Section 3.2 (S&P 500 application)] Section 3.2 applies the test to S&P 500 quarterly log-returns with p = 434, n_1 = 30, n_2 = 22, i.e., p/n_1 ≈ 14.5 and p/n_2 ≈ 19.7, which is precisely the p ≫ n regime in which the proof of Lemma A.3 (and hence of Theorem 2.1) is currently incomplete. In addition, the paper offers no diagnostic supporting (A1) (notably E|(ξ^2 − p)/√p|^8 = o(p^2)) or (A3) for these returns, despite citing the Wang–Lopes goodness-of-fit test for ellipticity in the introduction. The headline empirical claim that the proposed test 'is the only one to detect a difference' therefore rests on the unproven regime. The authors should either repair the proof so that it covers this regime, or qualify the application claim and add a discussion (or check) of the model assumptions on the data.

minor comments (7)

[Figure 1 caption] The caption contains the typo 'repititions' (should be 'repetitions'), and the figure would be clearer if it stated the sample sizes and the values of τ_i for the two displayed elliptical distributions.
[Equation (2.3)] The indices in (2.3) are inconsistent: the first summand writes x^{(1)T}_i x^{(2)}_j without defining i, and the starred sums are not accompanied by the 'pairwise distinct' convention in that display; this appears to be a typesetting artifact but should be corrected.
[Introduction (definition of the elliptical model)] The definition of (EM) in the Introduction states E[ξ_p] = p, but consistency with (A1) and with the normalization Cov(x) = Σ requires E[ξ_{i,1}^2] = p; as written the normalization is incorrect.
[Before Theorem 2.4] The quantity σ̃_n is defined with factor 2/n_i in Proposition 2.2 but with factor 1/n_i in the discussion before Theorem 2.4; the factor is asymptotically irrelevant but the two displays should be aligned.
[Proof of Lemma A.1] The sentence 'where used Lemma B.4 for the last step' is missing a subject and should read 'where we used Lemma B.4'.
[Remark 2] Remark 2 uses ν_{i,3} for the fourth moment of the independent component; the subscript is confusing and should be renamed (for instance κ_i).
[Introduction (typos)] The Introduction contains several typos, e.g., 'they different fundamentally in their modeling capacities' should read 'they differ fundamentally'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The derivation is self-contained: the central CLT is proven from stated moment assumptions and imported external moment lemmas, with no parameter fitted to data and no self-citation used as load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 2.1, a CLT for the U-statistic estimator T_n under elliptical models. The proof is carried out in Appendix A via a martingale decomposition, conditional variance computations (Lemmas A.1 and A.2), and a Lyapunov-type fourth-moment bound (Lemma A.3). These arguments use imported technical moment formulas: Lemma B.1 is attributed to Hu et al. (2019) and Wang and Lopes (2023), and Lemma B.2 is quoted from Wang and Lopes (2025). Those sources are external to the present author and are not used as a substitute for the main theorem; they supply raw moment estimates whose assumptions are stated in (A1) and (2.7). The variance formula (2.4) is derived, not fitted, and no constants are calibrated to data. The author's self-citations (Dörnemann 2023, Dette and Dörnemann 2020) appear only in literature review and benchmark comparison, not in the proof of Theorem 2.1 or its corollaries. The paper does contain an omitted-detail passage in the proof of Lemma A.3 ('The case k > n1 can be treated similarly, and we omit the details for the sake of brevity.'), which is a completeness concern rather than a circularity: it does not show that a result was assumed by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is independent: the test statistic is borrowed from Li and Chen (2012), but the elliptical-model CLT is newly established from the stated assumptions and external moment lemmas.

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

The central claim rests on the elliptical representation and moment assumptions (A1), sample-size growth (A2), and trace-product decay (A3), plus imported moment formulas. There are no fitted constants; τ_i is a model parameter that does not need estimation under the null. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Generalized elliptical representation x=ξΣ^{1/2}u+μ with E[ξ^2]=p, Var(ξ^2/√p)=τ_i+o(1), and E|(ξ^2-p)/√p|^8=o(p^2) (Assumption A1).
This is the data-generating model and the basis for all moment calculations. τ_i is a model parameter, not fitted, and cancels under the null.
domain assumption Sample sizes and dimension grow: p,n1,n2→∞ with n1/(n1+n2) asymptotically of order 1 (Assumption A2).
Used by the martingale CLT and the ratio-consistency argument; standard for two-sample high-dimensional tests.
domain assumption Trace products decay: tr(Σ_iΣ_jΣ_kΣ_l)=o(tr(Σ_iΣ_j)tr(Σ_kΣ_l)) and tr(Σ_kΣ_l)→∞ (Assumption A3).
Inherited from Li and Chen (2012); needed to identify the leading variance terms. Fails for strongly spiked spectra.
standard math The statistic T_n is exactly invariant under location shifts, so the proof may assume μ=0.
Stated in Section 2.2 and cited to Li and Chen (2012); verified by the polynomial structure of (2.2)-(2.3), but not spelled out.
standard math Mixed moment formulas for elliptical bilinear forms (Lemma B.1) and higher-order moment bounds (Lemma B.2).
Imported from Hu et al. (2019) and Wang and Lopes (2023, 2025); used throughout the proof of Theorem 2.1.
standard math Martingale central limit theorem (Billingsley, 1999, Theorem 18.1).
The convergence in distribution is established by verifying conditional variance convergence and a Lindeberg-type fourth moment condition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-Sample Covariance Inference in High-Dimensional Elliptical Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKH5PH2U

@misc{pith2026250702640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-Sample Covariance Inference in High-Dimensional Elliptical Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKH5PH2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02640}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a two-sample test for large-dimensional covariance matrices in generalized elliptical models. The test statistic is based on a U-statistic estimator of the squared Frobenius norm of the difference between the two population covariance matrices. This statistic was originally introduced by Li and Chen (2012, AoS) for the independent component model. As a key theoretical contribution, we establish a new central limit theorem for the U-statistics under elliptical data, valid under both the null and alternative hypotheses. This result enables asymptotic control of the test level and facilitates a power analysis. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed test is the first such method to be supported by theoretical guarantees for elliptical data. Our approach imposes only mild assumptions on the covariance matrices and does neither require sparsity nor explicit growth conditions on the dimension-to-sample-size ratio. We illustrate our theoretical findings through applications to both synthetic and real-world data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

barticle [author] Bai , Z. Z. , Jiang , D. D. , Yao , J. F. J. F. Zheng , S. S. ( 2009 ). Corrections to LRT on large-dimensional covariance matrix by RMT . Annals of Statistics 37 3822-3840 . barticle

work page 2009
[2]

barticle [author] Bancroft , Theodore Alfonso T. A. ( 1944 ). On biases in estimation due to the use of preliminary tests of significance . The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 15 190--204 . barticle

work page 1944
[3]

( 1999 )

bbook [author] Billingsley , Patrick P. ( 1999 ). Convergence of probability measures , second ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics . John Wiley & Sons Inc. , New York . bbook

work page 1999
[4]

, Liu , Weidong W

barticle [author] Cai , Tony T. , Liu , Weidong W. Xia , Yin Y. ( 2013 ). Two-sample covariance matrix testing and support recovery in high-dimensional and sparse settings . Journal of the American Statistical Association 108 265--277 . barticle

work page 2013
[5]

Xia , Yin Y

barticle [author] Chen , Hao H. Xia , Yin Y. ( 2023 ). A normality test for high-dimensional data based on the nearest neighbor approach . Journal of the American Statistical Association 118 719--731 . barticle

work page 2023
[6]

barticle [author] Chen , S. X. S. X. , Zhang , L. X. L. X. Zhong , P. S. P. S. ( 2010 ). Testing high dimensional covariance matrices . Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 810-819 . barticle

work page 2010
[7]

D \"o rnemann , Nina N

barticle [author] Dette , Holger H. D \"o rnemann , Nina N. ( 2020 ). Likelihood ratio tests for many groups in high dimensions . Journal of Multivariate Analysis 178 104605 . barticle

work page 2020
[8]

, Hu , Yichen Y

barticle [author] Ding , Xiucai X. , Hu , Yichen Y. Wang , Zhenggang Z. ( 2024 ). Two sample test for covariance matrices in ultra-high dimension . Journal of the American Statistical Association 1--12 . barticle

work page 2024

Show all 34 references

[9]

, Xie , Jiahui J

barticle [author] Ding , Xiucai X. , Xie , Jiahui J. , Yu , Long L. Zhou , Wang W. ( 2023 ). Extreme eigenvalues of sample covariance matrices under generalized elliptical models with applications . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03532 . barticle

2023 arXiv
[10]

( 2023 )

barticle [author] D \"o rnemann , Nina N. ( 2023 ). Likelihood ratio tests under model misspecification in high dimensions . Journal of Multivariate Analysis 193 105122 . barticle

2023
[11]

bbook [author] Gupta , Arjun K A. K. , Varga , Tamas T. , Bodnar , Taras T. et al. ( 2013 ). Elliptically contoured models in statistics and portfolio theory 2 . Springer . bbook

2013
[12]

, Li , Weiming W

barticle [author] Hu , Jiang J. , Li , Weiming W. Zhou , Wang W. ( 2019 ). Central limit theorem for mutual information of large MIMO systems with elliptically correlated channels . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 65 7168--7180 . barticle

2019
[13]

, Li , Weiming W

barticle [author] Hu , Jiang J. , Li , Weiming W. , Liu , Zhi Z. Zhou , Wang W. ( 2019 ). High-dimensional covariance matrices in elliptical distributions with application to spherical test . The Annals of Statistics 47 527 -- 555 . barticle

2019
[14]

Qi , Yongcheng Y

barticle [author] Jiang , Tiefeng T. Qi , Yongcheng Y. ( 2015 ). Likelihood Ratio Tests for High-Dimensional Normal Distributions . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 42 988--1009 . barticle

2015
[15]

Yang , Fan F

barticle [author] Jiang , Tiefeng T. Yang , Fan F. ( 2013 ). Central limit theorems for classical likelihood ratio tests for high-dimensional normal distributions . The Annals of Statistics 41 2029--2074 . barticle

2013
[16]

, Jiahui , Xie X

barticle [author] Jun , Wen W. , Jiahui , Xie X. , Long , Yu Y. Wang , Zhou Z. ( 2022 ). Tracy-Widom limit for the largest eigenvalue of high-dimensional covariance matrices in elliptical distributions . Bernoulli 28 2941--2967 . barticle

2022
[17]

bbook [author] Kariya , T. T. Sinha , B. K. B. K. ( 2014 ). Robustness of Statistical Tests . Academic Press . bbook

2014
[18]

barticle [author] Karoui , Noureddine El N. E. ( 2009 ). Concentration of measure and spectra of random matrices: Applications to correlation matrices, elliptical distributions and beyond . The Annals of Applied Probability 19 2362 -- 2405 . barticle

2009
[19]

Chen , Song Xi S

barticle [author] Li , Jun J. Chen , Song Xi S. X. ( 2012 ). Two sample tests for high-dimensional covariance matrices . The Annals of Statistics 40 908--940 . barticle

2012
[20]

, Li , Weiming W

barticle [author] Li , Runze R. , Li , Weiming W. Wang , Qinwen Q. ( 2025 ). Tests for Large-Dimensional Shape Matrices via Tyler’s M Estimators . Journal of the American Statistical Association 120 472--485 . barticle

2025
[21]

bbook [author] McNeil , Alexander J A. J. , Frey , R \"u diger R. Embrechts , Paul P. ( 2015 ). Quantitative risk management: concepts, techniques and tools-revised edition . Princeton university press . bbook

2015
[22]

barticle [author] Owen , J. J. Rabinovitch , R. R. ( 1983 ). On the class of elliptical distributions and their applications to the theory of portfolio choice . The Journal of Finance 38 745--752 . barticle

1983
[23]

barticle [author] Schott , James R J. R. ( 2007 ). A test for the equality of covariance matrices when the dimension is large relative to the sample sizes . Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 51 6535--6542 . barticle

2007
[24]

barticle [author] Srivastava , Muni S M. S. Yanagihara , Hirokazu H. ( 2010 ). Testing the equality of several covariance matrices with fewer observations than the dimension . Journal of Multivariate Analysis 101 1319--1329 . barticle

2010
[25]

Lopes , Miles E M

barticle [author] Wang , Siyao S. Lopes , Miles E M. E. ( 2023 ). A bootstrap method for spectral statistics in high-dimensional elliptical models . Electronic Journal of Statistics 17 1848--1892 . barticle

2023
[26]

Lopes , Miles E M

barticle [author] Wang , Siyao S. Lopes , Miles E M. E. ( 2025 ). Testing Elliptical Models in High Dimensions . to appear: Journal of the American Statistical Association . barticle

2025
[27]

, Zhou , Yeqing Y

barticle [author] Xu , Kai K. , Zhou , Yeqing Y. Zhu , Liping L. ( 2024 ). Adjusted location-invariant U-tests for the covariance matrix with elliptically high-dimensional data . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics . barticle

2024
[28]

, Zheng , Xinghua X

barticle [author] Yang , Xinxin X. , Zheng , Xinghua X. Chen , Jiaqi J. ( 2021 ). Testing high-dimensional covariance matrices under the elliptical distribution and beyond . Journal of Econometrics 221 409-423 . barticle

2021
[29]

, Li , Danning D

barticle [author] Yu , Xiufan X. , Li , Danning D. Xue , Lingzhou L. ( 2024 ). Fisher’s combined probability test for high-dimensional covariance matrices . Journal of the American Statistical Association 119 511--524 . barticle

2024
[30]

, Hu , Jiang J

barticle [author] Zhang , Yangchun Y. , Hu , Jiang J. Li , Weiming W. ( 2022 ). CLT for linear spectral statistics of high-dimensional sample covariance matrices in elliptical distributions . Journal of Multivariate Analysis 191 105007 . barticle

2022
[31]

, Zheng , Shurong S

barticle [author] Zhang , Zhixiang Z. , Zheng , Shurong S. , Pan , Guangming G. Zhong , Ping-Shou P.-S. ( 2022 ). Asymptotic independence of spiked eigenvalues and linear spectral statistics for large sample covariance matrices . The Annals of Statistics 50 2205--2230 . barticle

2022
[32]

( 2012 )

barticle [author] Zheng , Shurong S. ( 2012 ). Central limit theorems for linear spectral statistics of large dimensional F -matrices . 48 444--476 . barticle

2012
[33]

, Bai , Zhidong Z

barticle [author] Zheng , Shurong S. , Bai , Zhidong Z. Yao , Jianfeng J. ( 2015 ). Substitution principle for CLT of linear spectral statistics of high-dimensional sample covariance matrices with applications to hypothesis testing . Annals of Statistics 43 546--591 . barticle

2015
[34]

, Lin , Ruitao R

barticle [author] Zou , Tingting T. , Lin , Ruitao R. , Zheng , Shurong S. Tian , Guo-Liang G.-L. ( 2021 ). Two-sample tests for high-dimensional covariance matrices using both difference and ratio . Electronic Journal of Statistics 15 135 -- 210 . barticle

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

barticle [author] Bai , Z. Z. , Jiang , D. D. , Yao , J. F. J. F. Zheng , S. S. ( 2009 ). Corrections to LRT on large-dimensional covariance matrix by RMT . Annals of Statistics 37 3822-3840 . barticle

work page 2009

[2] [2]

barticle [author] Bancroft , Theodore Alfonso T. A. ( 1944 ). On biases in estimation due to the use of preliminary tests of significance . The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 15 190--204 . barticle

work page 1944

[3] [3]

( 1999 )

bbook [author] Billingsley , Patrick P. ( 1999 ). Convergence of probability measures , second ed. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics . John Wiley & Sons Inc. , New York . bbook

work page 1999

[4] [4]

, Liu , Weidong W

barticle [author] Cai , Tony T. , Liu , Weidong W. Xia , Yin Y. ( 2013 ). Two-sample covariance matrix testing and support recovery in high-dimensional and sparse settings . Journal of the American Statistical Association 108 265--277 . barticle

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Xia , Yin Y

barticle [author] Chen , Hao H. Xia , Yin Y. ( 2023 ). A normality test for high-dimensional data based on the nearest neighbor approach . Journal of the American Statistical Association 118 719--731 . barticle

work page 2023

[6] [6]

barticle [author] Chen , S. X. S. X. , Zhang , L. X. L. X. Zhong , P. S. P. S. ( 2010 ). Testing high dimensional covariance matrices . Journal of the American Statistical Association 105 810-819 . barticle

work page 2010

[7] [7]

D \"o rnemann , Nina N

barticle [author] Dette , Holger H. D \"o rnemann , Nina N. ( 2020 ). Likelihood ratio tests for many groups in high dimensions . Journal of Multivariate Analysis 178 104605 . barticle

work page 2020

[8] [8]

, Hu , Yichen Y

barticle [author] Ding , Xiucai X. , Hu , Yichen Y. Wang , Zhenggang Z. ( 2024 ). Two sample test for covariance matrices in ultra-high dimension . Journal of the American Statistical Association 1--12 . barticle

work page 2024