Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

O-MAGIC: Online Change-Point Detection for Dynamic Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read O-MAGIC spots ODE parameter shifts without integrating the system.

desk verdict A useful first general online change-point method for ODE parameters, but the empirical threshold calibration and a prior contradiction undermine the 'mathematically rigorous' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12277 v1 pith:OI7BZJVM submitted 2024-11-19 stat.AP

Yan Sun , Yeping Wang , Zhaohui Li , Shihao Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP MSC 62F1562L1062M10
keywords parameterchangedetectionordinarydifferentialequationsGaussianprocessmanifoldconstraintgeneralizedlikelihoodratiotestonlinealgorithmsparsenoisyobservationsSEIRDmodel
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 O-MAGIC, an online procedure that identifies when the parameters of an ordinary differential equation system change and re-estimates their values before and after each change, using only noisy, sparse, possibly incomplete observations. The motivation is that in epidemiology, ecology, and physics, abrupt shifts in hidden ODE parameters signal real-world interventions, and detecting them quickly matters more than detecting generic distributional shifts in the observed series. The paper claims that putting a Gaussian process prior on the system state and constraining its derivative to satisfy the ODE equations lets a two-sample generalized likelihood-ratio test locate the changes with shorter detection delay than time-series-only methods, and with less computation than repeatedly solving the ODE by numerical integration. The claim is demonstrated on SEIRD, Lotka-Volterra, and Lorenz systems.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the manifold-constrained Gaussian process surrogate likelihood: each system component is assigned a GP prior $X_d(t) \sim \mathrm{GP}(\mu_d, K_d)$ with a Matérn kernel, and the derivative process is forced to satisfy the ODE through the constraint $W_I = \sup_{t \in I} |\dot{X}_d(t) - f_d(X(t), \Theta(t), \Psi, t)| = 0$. This turns inference into a closed-form joint likelihood over GP prior, observation noise, and ODE manifold terms. On top of that likelihood, a generalized likelihood ratio statistic $\log \Lambda = \log(L_1/L_0)$ compares a constant parameter window against a two-piece window with a candidate break, with an empirical threshold $h$ set by simulating a null observation series from the initial parameter estimates. A sliding window, a detection zone restricted to the most recent $R$ observations, and an assumption of at most one change per window keep the procedure online; a spike-and-slab prior on the parameter trajectory drives the offline uncertainty quantification via Gibbs sampling.

What would settle it

Simulate an ODE such as Lotka-Volterra with the first parameter change occurring inside the nominal no-change initialization window, or with the pre-change parameters estimated from a very short and noisy window; run O-MAGIC's threshold calibration on the artificial null series and then stream data. If the empirical threshold is the maximum null GLR statistic, the procedure should either miss the early true change or fire a false alarm before it, showing that the reported FAR and EDD depend critically on the calibration being representative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

O-MAGIC's core claim is that parameter change points in a nonlinear ODE can be detected reliably by testing, inside a sliding window, whether a single constant parameter vector explains the window or whether a two-piece constant vector with a break at some candidate time fits significantly better. Because the Gaussian process prior with the ODE manifold constraint yields a closed-form surrogate likelihood, both hypotheses are scored without numerical integration, and the window is reset after each detected break so that multiple changes can be caught. In the three simulated systems the procedure is reported to attain false alarm rates near 5 percent, expected detection delays of roughly four to six time units, high segmentation covering scores around 0.94 to 0.97, and computation times well below Runge-Kutta-based brute-force search, while general time-series baselines show far higher false alarm rates and delays. An offline Bayesian extension with a spike-and-slab prior on the time-varying parameter assigns posterior probability to each time point being a change, giving an uncertainty-aware map of where the system's behavior shifted.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the initial window contains no change points and that the parameters estimated there are representative enough that an artificial null series generated from them yields a correctly calibrated threshold $h$; if the first change arrives early or the initial estimate is biased, the reported false-alarm and detection-delay behavior no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's results hold, pandemic or ecosystem monitors can detect a policy-driven parameter change within about a week on daily data in the SEIRD setting, with a retrospective change-time estimate within about two days of the truth.
  • The same GLR scheme is claimed to work for any nonlinear ODE system of the form $\dot{x}(t) = f(x(t), \theta(t), \psi, t)$, including chaotic systems, so it generalizes beyond the three test models.
  • Because the method avoids numerical integration, its computational advantage over Runge-Kutta-based search grows as the observation stream lengthens.
  • The algorithm estimates parameters before and after each change, so detection is tied to a quantification of the change's size, not just a timestamp.
  • The distinction between detection time and retrospectively estimated change time suggests that online alarm and offline refinement can be reported separately, which is useful for applications where the alarm must be quick but the final change location should be precise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the threshold $h$ as an empirical calibration from an artificial null series; a natural follow-up is to check whether the false-alarm rate remains controlled when the initial parameter estimate is itself noisy or when the first change occurs early.
  • The separation between detection time and estimated change time points to a two-stage design, trigger quickly with the GLR statistic and then refine with the Bayesian spike-and-slab sampler, that could be borrowed by other online detectors.
  • A testable extension would be to feed the same GP surrogate likelihood into alternative change-detection engines, such as CUSUM or Bayesian online change-point detection, to see whether the manifold constraint transfers its advantage beyond the GLR setup.
  • The empirical threshold calibration assumes the artificial null series mimics the real pre-change process; stress-testing O-MAGIC on simulated systems where that null is misspecified would map the boundary of the reported performance.
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 proposes O-MAGIC, an online change-point detection method for parameters in ordinary differential equation (ODE) systems. It builds on the MAGI framework, which uses Gaussian processes with a manifold constraint enforcing the ODE structure, and adds a sliding-window generalized likelihood ratio (GLR) test to detect abrupt parameter changes. An offline Bayesian uncertainty-quantification procedure using a spike-and-slab prior on change-point indicators is also introduced. The method is evaluated on three examples (SEIRD, Lotka-Volterra, Lorenz) against a numerical-integration baseline (Runge-Kutta) and two time-series change-point methods (Microsoft SSA and TIRE), reporting false alarm rate, expected detection delay, mean absolute error, covering metric, and computation time.

Significance. If the reported performance is robust, O-MAGIC is a useful contribution: it avoids repeated numerical integration, handles sparse and noisy observations, and applies to general nonlinear ODEs. The paper provides a reproducible framework with simulation code and benchmarks against several baselines, and the three case studies cover realistic and challenging dynamics. However, the central claim of mathematical rigor is not supported by the empirical threshold calibration in Section 4.2, and the reported detection-delay advantage over the numerical-integration baseline is not consistently observed in Tables 1-3. The significance is therefore contingent on a proper calibration analysis and a more measured framing of the method's guarantees.

major comments (3)
  1. [4.2] The GLR threshold h is set to the maximum of a single artificial null series generated from initial parameter estimates. This is not a calibrated critical value: the maximum of a finite Monte Carlo sample is a random variable that generally lies below the true upper quantile of the null distribution, so the false alarm rate is not controlled at any nominal level. The paper's own sensitivity analysis (Table 4) shows the false alarm rate varying from 11.63% at h=10 to 3.03% at h=50, demonstrating that performance is threshold-dependent. Since the reported FAR and EDD values in Tables 1-3 are obtained with this ad hoc h, they do not establish that the method controls error rates in general. The abstract's 'mathematically rigorous' claim and Section 6's 'statistically princized' wording are unsupported without either a proper null-distribution analysis or a validated calibration procedure.
  2. [3.3 / 4.2.1] The generalized likelihood ratio statistic in Eq. (7) is computed from the surrogate likelihood in Eq. (5), which profiles over latent GP states X(I), parameters theta, psi, and sigma. The number of profiled latent variables grows with the window size, so the test statistic can be inflated even under the null, and the effective null distribution depends on the window length and kernel hyperparameters. The paper provides no analysis of this effect, and Section 4.2 explicitly concedes that 'rigorous mathematical calculations are hard.' The manuscript should state clearly that Eq. (5) is a surrogate likelihood approximation inherited from MAGI and that the GLR test is a heuristic scan statistic, not a standard likelihood-ratio test with known asymptotic distribution.
  3. [Abstract / Tables 1-3] The abstract claims that O-MAGIC 'enjoys a significant advantage in detection delay' and 'achieves substantial savings in computation time.' The reported results do not consistently support these claims. In Table 1 (SEIRD), the Runge-Kutta baseline has smaller EDD (4.80 vs. 5.85), and in Table 2 (Lotka-Volterra) it is also smaller (4.62 vs. 5.42). The computation-time reduction relative to Runge-Kutta is about 1.3-1.5x, which is modest, while the time-series baselines are orders of magnitude faster. The claims should be tempered to 'competitive or improved detection delay compared to time-series methods' and 'moderate computation savings versus numerical integration,' or the experimental comparison should be extended to settings where the claimed advantage is actually observed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [5.1] The definition of false alarm rate, 'FAR = # False positive / (# False positive + N - # True changes)', is incomplete because N is not defined; it should be stated whether N is the total number of time points or the number of scans. The phrase 'FAR is a.' appears to be a dangling fragment.
  2. [Table 4] The caption states 'The last row shows the computing time (in minutes) needed to obtain point estimates from all methods,' but Table 4 has no computing-time row; the caption appears to be a leftover from a different table.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The displayed log-likelihood has unmatched braces and appears to contain a duplicated '|I| log(2*pi)' term; the expression should be checked and rewritten with consistent notation.
  4. [Supplementary Algorithm 1] The acceptance criterion 'if P new / P cur > U' uses U without defining it as a Uniform(0,1) random draw. Also, Section 4.3.3 describes the procedure as 'systematic scan Gibbs sampling,' but Algorithm 1 is a Metropolis-Hastings step that flips one bit of A; the terminology should be corrected.
  5. [2] Reference [23] is described as based on 'a reproducing Hilbert kernel'; the standard term is 'reproducing kernel Hilbert space' or simply 'reproducing kernel.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical GLR threshold is a calibration step, the likelihood is written out in the paper, and self-citations are to external published work rather than a uniqueness-forcing chain.

full rationale

O-MAGIC's derivation chain is self-contained. The surrogate likelihood in Eq. (5) is explicitly constructed in the paper from GP priors, observation noise, and the W=0 manifold constraint; the citation to MAGI [18] is supporting external work and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem. The GLR test in Section 4.2.1 maximizes the same likelihood under H0 (constant theta) and under H1 (one change point), so the test statistic is a genuine likelihood comparison rather than an identity forced by definition. The empirical threshold in Section 4.2 is a calibration step, not a predicted quantity: h is obtained by generating an artificial null series from initial estimates and then applied to independently simulated change-point scenarios; this may be statistically fragile, and the paper itself admits that 'rigorous mathematical calculations are hard for this problem,' which weakens the abstract's 'mathematically rigorous' wording, but this is a robustness and correctness concern, not circularity. The self-citations to [18] and [37] are used as subroutines, yet the relevant likelihood is restated in the paper and the cited works are published external results, so the central change-point claim does not reduce to those citations by construction. No quoted equation makes the output equivalent to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on a known ODE form, an approximate GP surrogate likelihood, and several tuning choices; none of these are derived in this paper, and the empirical threshold is the most consequential free parameter.

free parameters (5)
  • empirical threshold h = calibrated per model, not a single fixed value
    Section 4.2; obtained as maximum GLR over simulated null series from initial parameter estimates, so all reported FAR and EDD numbers depend on this fitted cutoff.
  • GP kernel hyperparameters (phi1, phi2) = estimated per component via marginal likelihood in Eq. 8
    They set the Matern covariance in Eq. 6, which drives the surrogate likelihood Eq. 5 and therefore the GLR statistic.
  • scanning window length T_max and detection zone R = e.g., T_max=40, R=7 for SEIRD
    Sections 4.1.1 and 5.1; these tuning parameters control the at-most-one-change assumption and detection delay.
  • spike-and-slab prior parameters (sigma0, lambda0, theta bounds) = sigma0=0.01, lambda0=1 or 5, model-specific bounds
    Section 4.3.1 and Eq. 10; the uncertainty quantification posterior and change probability depend on these; Section 6.4 shows sensitivity.
  • HMC step size and leapfrog steps = tuned for roughly 70 percent acceptance
    Section 6.4; sampling in Algorithm 1 requires tuning, and the posterior change probabilities depend on it.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The ODE model form f is known up to parameters theta(t) and psi
    Equation 1 and Section 3; O-MAGIC requires the functional form of the dynamics, only parameters are inferred.
  • domain assumption Equation 5's Gaussian density on derivative residuals is a valid surrogate for the ODE manifold constraint W_I = 0
    Section 3.3; the central likelihood is inherited from MAGI [18] and is an approximation, not a derived equality.
  • domain assumption Each scanning window contains at most one change point
    Section 4.1.1: 'with a suitably chosen scanning radius Tmax, any window would contain at most one change point.'
  • domain assumption No change points occur in the initial window T0
    Section 4.1.1: 'we posit that there are no change points within a brief initial period.'
  • domain assumption All change points lie on the discretization grid I
    Section 3.3: 'we assume all change points are contained within I.'
  • domain assumption Matern GP with nu=2.01 is sufficiently differentiable and flexible to approximate ODE solutions
    Section 3.3, Eq. 6; used for all state components.
  • standard math Standard Gaussian process and probability theory
    Used throughout Section 3 for posterior and likelihood manipulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of O-MAGIC: Online Change-Point Detection for Dynamic Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OI7BZJVM

@misc{pith2026241112277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: O-MAGIC: Online Change-Point Detection for Dynamic Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OI7BZJVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12277}
}
read the original abstract

The capture of changes in dynamic systems, especially ordinary differential equations (ODEs), is an important and challenging task, with multiple applications in biomedical research and other scientific areas. This article proposes a fast and mathematically rigorous online method, called ODE-informed MAnifold-constrained Gaussian process Inference for Change point detection(O-MAGIC), to detect changes of parameters in the ODE system using noisy and sparse observation data. O-MAGIC imposes a Gaussian process prior to the time series of system components with a latent manifold constraint, induced by restricting the derivative process to satisfy ODE conditions. To detect the parameter changes from the observation, we propose a procedure based on a two-sample generalized likelihood ratio (GLR) test that can detect multiple change points in the dynamic system automatically. O-MAGIC bypasses conventional numerical integration and achieves substantial savings in computation time. By incorporating the ODE structures through manifold constraints, O-MAGIC enjoys a significant advantage in detection delay, while following principled statistical construction under the Bayesian paradigm, which further enables it to handle systems with missing data or unobserved components. O-MAGIC can also be applied to general nonlinear systems. Simulation studies on three challenging examples: SEIRD model, Lotka-Volterra model and Lorenz model are provided to illustrate the robustness and efficiency of O-MAGIC, compared with numerical integration and other popular time-series-based change point detection benchmark methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of SEIRD model given one random sample observation. The top 4 plots show the sample ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results of LV model, with sample observations (upper) and inferred parameters (lower). The six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of Lorenz model, with sample observations (upper) and inferred parameters (lower). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean of posterior sample A, under different parameter settings. True change occurs at t = 40. When σ 2 0 increases or λ0 decreases, the prior changes will increase. Consequently, the overall probability of change increases for each time point. On the other hand, increa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Veeravalli

    Liyan Xie, Shaofeng Zou, Yao Xie, and Venugopal V . Veeravalli. Sequential (quickest) change detection: Classical results and new directions, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Global stability for the seir model in epidemiology

    Michael Y Li and James S Muldowney. Global stability for the seir model in epidemiology. Mathematical biosciences, 125(2):155–164, 1995

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Evolution of predator–prey systems described by a lotka–volterra equation under random environment

    Yasuhiro Takeuchi, Nguyen H Du, Nguyen T Hieu, and Kazunori Sato. Evolution of predator–prey systems described by a lotka–volterra equation under random environment. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and applications, 323(2):938–957, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Numerical and physical modeling of the dynamics of the lorenz system.Numerical analysis and Applications, 7(2):159–167, 2014

    AN Pchelintsev. Numerical and physical modeling of the dynamics of the lorenz system.Numerical analysis and Applications, 7(2):159–167, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Numerical solution of ordinary differential equations

    Leon Lapidus and John H Seinfeld. Numerical solution of ordinary differential equations. Academic press, 1971

    work page 1971

  6. [6]

    Accelerating bayesian inference over nonlinear differ- ential equations with gaussian processes

    Ben Calderhead, Mark Girolami, and Neil Lawrence. Accelerating bayesian inference over nonlinear differ- ential equations with gaussian processes. Advances in neural information processing systems, 21, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Solving and learning nonlinear pdes with gaussian processes

    Yifan Chen, Bamdad Hosseini, Houman Owhadi, and Andrew M Stuart. Solving and learning nonlinear pdes with gaussian processes. Journal of Computational Physics, 447:110668, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Posterior consistency via precision operators for bayesian nonparametric drift estimation in sdes

    Yvo Pokern, Andrew M Stuart, and J Harry van Zanten. Posterior consistency via precision operators for bayesian nonparametric drift estimation in sdes. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 123(2):603– 628, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Nonparametric estimation of diffusions: a differential equations approach

    Omiros Papaspiliopoulos, Yvo Pokern, Gareth O Roberts, and Andrew M Stuart. Nonparametric estimation of diffusions: a differential equations approach. Biometrika, 99(3):511–531, 2012. 25

    2012

  2. [10]

    Signal processing problems on function space: Bayesian formulation, stochastic pdes and effective mcmc methods, 2011

    Martin Hairer, Andrew M Stuart, and Jochen V oss. Signal processing problems on function space: Bayesian formulation, stochastic pdes and effective mcmc methods, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Ode parameter inference using adaptive gradient matching with gaussian processes

    Frank Dondelinger, Dirk Husmeier, Simon Rogers, and Maurizio Filippone. Ode parameter inference using adaptive gradient matching with gaussian processes. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 216–228. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Gaussian processes for bayesian estimation in ordinary differential equations

    David Barber and Yali Wang. Gaussian processes for bayesian estimation in ordinary differential equations. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1485–1493. PMLR, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Fast bayesian inference of optical trap stiffness and particle diffusion

    Sudipta Bera, Shuvojit Paul, Rajesh Singh, Dipanjan Ghosh, Avijit Kundu, Ayan Banerjee, and R Adhikari. Fast bayesian inference of optical trap stiffness and particle diffusion. Scientific reports, 7(1):1–10, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Multiphase mcmc sampling for parameter infer- ence in nonlinear ordinary differential equations

    Alan Lazarus, Dirk Husmeier, and Theodore Papamarkou. Multiphase mcmc sampling for parameter infer- ence in nonlinear ordinary differential equations. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1252–1260. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Fast gaussian process based gradient matching for parameter identification in systems of nonlinear odes

    Philippe Wenk, Alkis Gotovos, Stefan Bauer, Nico S Gorbach, Andreas Krause, and Joachim M Buhmann. Fast gaussian process based gradient matching for parameter identification in systems of nonlinear odes. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Stati...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Probabilistic solutions to ordinary differen- tial equations as nonlinear bayesian filtering: a new perspective

    Filip Tronarp, Hans Kersting, Simo S¨arkk¨a, and Philipp Hennig. Probabilistic solutions to ordinary differen- tial equations as nonlinear bayesian filtering: a new perspective. Statistics and Computing, 29:1297–1315, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Probabilistic ode solutions in millions of dimensions

    Nicholas Kr ¨amer, Nathanael Bosch, Jonathan Schmidt, and Philipp Hennig. Probabilistic ode solutions in millions of dimensions. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11634–11649. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Inference of dynamic systems from noisy and sparse data via manifold-constrained gaussian processes

    Shihao Yang, Samuel WK Wong, and SC Kou. Inference of dynamic systems from noisy and sparse data via manifold-constrained gaussian processes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15):e2020397118, 2021. 26

    2021

  11. [19]

    A seir model for control of infectious diseases with constraints

    Md Haider Ali Biswas, Lu´ıs Tiago Paiva, M Do Rosario de Pinho, et al. A seir model for control of infectious diseases with constraints. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 11(4):761–784, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    A survey of methods for time series change point detection

    Samaneh Aminikhanghahi and Diane J Cook. A survey of methods for time series change point detection. Knowledge and information systems, 51(2):339–367, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    The cusum test for parameter change in time series models

    Sangyeol Lee, Jeongcheol Ha, Okyoung Na, and Seongryong Na. The cusum test for parameter change in time series models. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 30(4):781–796, 2003

    2003

  14. [22]

    Multiple-change-point detection for auto-regressive conditional het- eroscedastic processes

    Piotr Fryzlewicz and S Subba Rao. Multiple-change-point detection for auto-regressive conditional het- eroscedastic processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Statistical Methodology, pages 903–924, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Kernel change-point analysis

    Zaid Harchaoui, Eric Moulines, and Francis Bach. Kernel change-point analysis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 21, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Change point testing for the drift parame- ters of a periodic mean reversion process

    Herold Dehling, Brice Franke, Thomas Kott, and Reg Kulperger. Change point testing for the drift parame- ters of a periodic mean reversion process. Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes, 17:1–18, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Test for tail index change in stationary time series with pareto-type marginal distribution

    Moosup Kim and Sangyeol Lee. Test for tail index change in stationary time series with pareto-type marginal distribution. 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Real-time change point detection with appli- cation to smart home time series data.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 31(5):1010– 1023, 2018

    Samaneh Aminikhanghahi, Tinghui Wang, and Diane J Cook. Real-time change point detection with appli- cation to smart home time series data.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 31(5):1010– 1023, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Bayesian online prediction of change points

    Diego Agudelo-Espa ˜na, Sebastian Gomez-Gonzalez, Stefan Bauer, Bernhard Sch ¨olkopf, and Jan Peters. Bayesian online prediction of change points. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 320–329. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Asymptotically distribution free test for parameter change in a diffusion process model

    Ilia Negri and Yoichi Nishiyama. Asymptotically distribution free test for parameter change in a diffusion process model. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 64(5):911–918, 2012. 27

    2012

  21. [29]

    Sequential change-point detection in continuous time when the post-change drift is unknown

    Martin Beibel. Sequential change-point detection in continuous time when the post-change drift is unknown. Bernoulli, pages 457–478, 1997

    1997

  22. [30]

    Test for parameter change in diffusion processes by cusum statistics based on one-step estimators

    Sangyeol Lee, Yoichi Nishiyama, and Nakahiro Yoshida. Test for parameter change in diffusion processes by cusum statistics based on one-step estimators. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 58(2):211– 222, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Change-point detection in time-series data based on subspace identification

    Yoshinobu Kawahara, Takehisa Yairi, and Kazuo Machida. Change-point detection in time-series data based on subspace identification. In Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2007), pages 559–564. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    A nonlinear filtering approach to changepoint detection problems: Direct and differential-geometric methods

    Michel H Vellekoop and J Martin C Clark. A nonlinear filtering approach to changepoint detection problems: Direct and differential-geometric methods. SIAM review, 48(2):329–356, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Inferring change points in the spread of covid-19 reveals the effective- ness of interventions

    Jonas Dehning, Johannes Zierenberg, F Paul Spitzner, Michael Wibral, Joao Pinheiro Neto, Michael Wilczek, and Viola Priesemann. Inferring change points in the spread of covid-19 reveals the effective- ness of interventions. Science, 369(6500):eabb9789, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Bayessmiles: Bayesian segmentation modeling for longitudinal epidemiological studies

    Shuang Jiang, Quan Zhou, Xiaowei Zhan, and Qiwei Li. Bayessmiles: Bayesian segmentation modeling for longitudinal epidemiological studies. MedRxiv, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Using invariants to determine change detection in dynamical system with chaos

    Mateusz Tykierko. Using invariants to determine change detection in dynamical system with chaos. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 15(3):223–233, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Inference for multiple change points in time series via likelihood ratio scan statistics

    Chun Yip Yau and Zifeng Zhao. Inference for multiple change points in time series via likelihood ratio scan statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Statistical Methodology, pages 895–916, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Manifold-constrained gaussian process inference for time-varying parameters in dynamic systems

    Yan Sun and Shihao Yang. Manifold-constrained gaussian process inference for time-varying parameters in dynamic systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.13407, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Spike and slab variable selection: frequentist and bayesian strategies

    Hemant Ishwaran and J Sunil Rao. Spike and slab variable selection: frequentist and bayesian strategies. 2005. 28

    2005

  31. [39]

    Multidimensional scaling of measures of distance between partitions

    Phipps Arabie and Scott A Boorman. Multidimensional scaling of measures of distance between partitions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 10(2):148–203, 1973

    1973

  32. [40]

    Comparing partitions

    Lawrence Hubert and Phipps Arabie. Comparing partitions. Journal of classification, 2(1):193–218, 1985

    1985

  33. [41]

    Mengenlehre

    Felix Hausdorff. Mengenlehre. Berlin and Leipzig, 1927

    1927

  34. [42]

    Contour detection and hierarchical image segmentation

    Pablo Arbelaez, Michael Maire, Charless Fowlkes, and Jitendra Malik. Contour detection and hierarchical image segmentation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 33(5):898–916, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge. International journal of computer vision, 88(2):303–338, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    An evaluation of change point detection algorithms

    Gerrit JJ van den Burg and Christopher KI Williams. An evaluation of change point detection algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06222, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The mathematics of infectious diseases

    Herbert W Hethcote. The mathematics of infectious diseases. SIAM review, 42(4):599–653, 2000

    2000

  38. [46]

    Reconstruc- tion of the full transmission dynamics of covid-19 in wuhan

    Xingjie Hao, Shanshan Cheng, Degang Wu, Tangchun Wu, Xihong Lin, and Chaolong Wang. Reconstruc- tion of the full transmission dynamics of covid-19 in wuhan. Nature, 584(7821):420–424, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    On the volterra and other nonlinear models of interacting populations

    Narendra S Goel, Samaresh C Maitra, and Elliott W Montroll. On the volterra and other nonlinear models of interacting populations. Reviews of modern physics, 43(2):231, 1971

    1971

  40. [48]

    Resistance of the prey-to-predator ratio to environmental gradients and to biomanipulations

    David B Donald and R Stewart Anderson. Resistance of the prey-to-predator ratio to environmental gradients and to biomanipulations. Ecology, 84(9):2387–2394, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    Dynamic analysis of a fractional-order lorenz chaotic system

    Yongguang Yu, Han-Xiong Li, Sha Wang, and Junzhi Yu. Dynamic analysis of a fractional-order lorenz chaotic system. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 42(2):1181–1189, 2009

    2009

  42. [50]

    Intermittency and the lorenz model

    Paul Manneville and Yves Pomeau. Intermittency and the lorenz model. Physics Letters A, 75(1-2):1–2, 1979. 29

    1979

  43. [51]

    Riemann manifold langevin and hamiltonian monte carlo methods

    Mark Girolami and Ben Calderhead. Riemann manifold langevin and hamiltonian monte carlo methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 73(2):123–214, 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection

    Hao Chen and Zhenwei Shi. A spatial-temporal attention-based method and a new dataset for remote sensing image change detection. Remote Sensing, 12(10):1662, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Generalized langevin equation with fractional gaussian noise: subdiffu- sion within a single protein molecule

    Samuel C Kou and X Sunney Xie. Generalized langevin equation with fractional gaussian noise: subdiffu- sion within a single protein molecule. Physical review letters, 93(18):180603, 2004. 30 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Algorithm 1 Efficient M-H algorithm for updating A Pre-set: σ2 ...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.