Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

Prokhorov Metric Convergence of the Partial Sum Process for Reconstructed Functional Data

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Under polynomial α-mixing and approximate stationarity, the partial sum process of reconstructed functional data is within C N^{-τ} of Brownian motion in Prokhorov distance.

desk verdict A serious, genuinely new rate result whose central proof has a load-bearing gap: Lemma B.2's external Gaussian approximation is applied to a triangular array it may not cover. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21172 v1 pith:K3EXVNGW submitted 2025-06-26 math.ST stat.TH

Tim Kutta , Piotr Kokoszka This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62M1062R10
keywords functionaldataanalysissparseProkhorovmetricWassersteininvarianceprinciplealpha-mixingcouplingchangepointmonitoring
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 sets out to prove that the partial sum process of sparsely observed, reconstructed random functions converges to its Gaussian limit in the Prokhorov metric at a polynomial rate, not merely weakly. The target is a finite-sample bound of the form $\pi_\infty(P_N, W) \leq C N^{-\tau}$ for a constant $\tau > 0$, where $P_N$ is built from estimators $X_{i,M_N}$ that may be only approximately stationary and $W$ is a Brownian motion with the long-run covariance of the latent functions. If true, this is the first such rate for a function-valued partial sum process under $\alpha$-mixing, and it yields new couplings between the process and Brownian motion, a strong invariance principle, and a validation of open-ended change-point monitoring for sparse functional data. The argument works by a two-step discretization: first replace the functional process by a high-dimensional grid approximation using entropy bounds, then apply a high-dimensional Gaussian approximation for weakly dependent vectors.

What carries the argument

The proof's engine is a two-step discretization. First, for a grid $\mathcal{G}_N$ on $[0,1] \times [-N^\rho, N^\rho]$ with mesh $N^{-\varsigma}$ and cardinality of order $N^{\rho+2\varsigma}$, the process $P_N$ is replaced by the step function $P_N^{\mathrm{dis}}$ that reads off the value at the nearest gridpoint and is zero outside the growing cube; entropy and packing-number bounds together with a chaining moment inequality control the sup-norm difference between $P_N$ and $P_N^{\mathrm{dis}}$, including the tail outside the cube. Second, because the discretized process lives in a finite-dimensional space of dimension $|\mathcal{G}_N|$, a high-dimensional Gaussian approximation for $\alpha$-mixing vectors (Lemma B.2, derived from Theorem 3.27 in [40]) gives a polynomial Prokhorov bound between $P_N^{\mathrm{dis}}$ and a Gaussian with covariance $\Sigma_N$, and a Wasserstein computation for Gaussian measures together with a matrix square-root proximity bound from [41] transfers to the Brownian covariance. A final step applies modulus-of-continuity and tail bounds for Banach-valued Brownian motion to undo the discretization.

What would settle it

Check the statement of Theorem 3.27 in [40] against the vectors $\vec{v}_i$ defined in Lemma A.3: if it requires stationarity, fixed dimension, or stronger mixing than the paper's polynomial $\alpha$-decay, then Lemma B.2 fails and Theorem 4.1 has no proof. Alternatively, simulate a simple stationary autoregressive functional process and estimate $\pi_\infty(P_N, W)$ for increasing $N$; an empirical decay slower than any polynomial rate would contradict the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 4.1 is the central claim: under Assumptions 1 and 2 there are constants $C, \tau > 0$ with $\pi_\infty(P_N, W) \leq C N^{-\tau}$. The metric is Prokhorov distance with respect to the supremum norm on $C_0(I_2, \mathbb{R}^d)$, $P_N$ is the normalized partial sum process of reconstructed functions, and $W$ is the centered Brownian motion whose covariance is the long-run variance kernel of the latent functions restricted to $I_2$. The theorem covers fixed, slowly expanding, and infinite domains $I_2$, requires only polynomial $\alpha$-mixing and approximate weak stationarity of the triangular array, and allows the reconstructed functions to be based on imbalanced samples. The authors read the bound as the first finite-sample, polynomial-rate distributional approximation between a functional partial sum process and its Brownian limit, and they build couplings, Wasserstein bounds, a bounded law of the iterated logarithm, an almost sure invariance principle under $\beta$-mixing, and a monitoring validation on top of it.

Load-bearing premise

The polynomial rate stands on an imported high-dimensional Gaussian approximation theorem that must apply to the specific discretized triangular array with dimension growing like $N^{\rho+2\varsigma}$; if that theorem does not cover nonstationary vectors of growing dimension, the bound in Theorem 4.1 is not proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Corollary 1 yields a coupling of the reconstructed functions with $W$ such that $\sup_{x\in[0,1]} \|P_N^{\mathrm{lin}}(x) - W(x)\| \leq C N^{-\tau}$ except on an event of probability at most $C N^{-\tau}$.
  • Theorem 5.1 upgrades the coupling to $q$-th moment control for some $q > 2$, giving Wasserstein-distance convergence $W_q(P_N^{\mathrm{lin}}, W) \leq \bar{C} N^{-\bar{\tau}}$ and an approximation of the $\alpha$-mixing triangular array by independent Gaussian functions.
  • For fully observed functions, Corollary 2 gives a bounded law of the iterated logarithm under $\alpha$-mixing and Corollary 3 gives an almost sure invariance principle with polynomial rate under $\beta$-mixing.
  • Theorem 6.1 validates an open-ended CUSUM monitoring scheme for sparse functional time series: the test has asymptotic level $\alpha$ and is consistent, using the coupling over a growing monitoring horizon instead of an infinite-domain strong approximation.
  • These consequences do not follow from ordinary weak convergence, because they require polynomial control of the Prokhorov distance rather than mere convergence in distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rate $\tau$ is not made explicit and depends on hidden constants; an explicit version would require tracking all constants through the entropy, Gaussian approximation, and matrix perturbation steps, which the paper does not do.
  • The same discretize-then-approximate template should transfer to other Banach-valued partial sum processes, such as multivariate functional panels or functions on higher-dimensional cubes, whenever entropy bounds and a high-dimensional Gaussian approximation are available.
  • A concrete stress test is to verify Lemma B.2 against the original statement of Theorem 3.27 in [40] for dimension $|\mathcal{G}_N|$ growing with $N$ and nonstationary rows; if that theorem requires fixed dimension or stationarity, the proof of Theorem 4.1 needs a different ingredient.
  • The monitoring application suggests a general principle: any polynomial Prokhorov bound on a growing compact domain can replace an infinite-domain strong approximation in validating open-ended sequential tests, which may extend to settings where KMT-type approximations 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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops finite-sample bounds on the Prokhorov and Wasserstein distances between the partial sum process of reconstructed functional data and a Brownian limit in spaces of continuous functions. The central object is a partially observed, weakly dependent triangular array of sparse estimators $X_{i,M_N}$; under two assumptions (polynomial $\alpha$-mixing, moments and H\"older smoothness; and fixed, expanding, or infinite domain conditions), Theorem 4.1 asserts a polynomial rate $\pi_\infty(P_N,W)\le C N^{-\tau}$. The proof proceeds in three steps: (1) approximate $P_N$ by a grid discretization using empirical-process entropy bounds; (2) approximate the discretized process by a high-dimensional Gaussian using an external Gaussian-approximation theorem; (3) approximate the discretized Brownian motion by the continuous Brownian motion using modulus-of-continuity and tail estimates. From Theorem 4.1 the paper derives couplings, Wasserstein bounds, a bounded law of the iterated logarithm, an almost sure invariance principle, and a monitoring scheme for sparse functional data.

Significance. If Theorem 4.1 is valid, this is a substantial contribution: it would give the first polynomial-rate Prokhorov bound for a function-valued partial sum process under polynomially decaying $\alpha$-mixing and only approximate stationarity, and it would provide a new route to couplings and to open-ended monitoring for sparse functional data. The two-step discretization strategy is genuinely novel, and the paper is honest about the role of external benchmarks (entropy bounds, Gaussian approximation, matrix perturbation inequalities). The main strength of the presentation is the explicit separation of the three approximation steps and the detailed supplementary material. However, the central rate in Step 2 rests on an external theorem whose hypotheses are not checked, so the main claim is currently conditional on an unverified ingredient.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Information, Lemma B.2 and Lemma A.3 (Step 2)] The proof of Lemma A.3 invokes Lemma B.2 for the bound $\pi_\infty(\vec P_N^{\mathrm{dis}}, \mathcal N(0,\Sigma_N)) \le C N^{-1/20}|\mathcal G_N|^3$ in (A.16). Lemma B.2 is stated for a fixed sequence $v_1,v_2,\dots\in\mathbb R^q$ with fixed dimension $q$, whereas Lemma A.3 applies it to the triangular array $\vec v_i^N$ whose entries contain the $N$-dependent truncation indicators $1\{i\le \lfloor\lambda N\rfloor\}$ and whose dimension $|\mathcal G_N|\asymp N^{\rho+2\varsigma}$ grows with $N$. The manuscript neither reproduces Theorem 3.27 of [40] nor verifies that it covers nonstationary triangular arrays with growing dimension, that its mixing and moment hypotheses match the choices $\eta_1=J-3$, $\eta_2=\nu$, or that its error is of the stated form for the maximum-norm Prokhorov metric. Since (A.16) is the only source of the polynomial rate in Step 2, this is load-bearing for Theorem 4.1 and hence for Corollary 1, Theorem 5.1, Corollary 3, and Theorem 6.1. The authors need to reproduce the external theorem or replace it with a Gaussian approximation result whose hypotheses are verified directly for this array.
  2. [Section 5, Corollary 1, proof after (12)] The proof says that on the coupling space one can define $X_{n,M_N}(u)=P_N^{\mathrm{lin}}(n/N,u)-P_N^{\mathrm{lin}}((n-1)/N,u)$. But the process $P_N^{\mathrm{lin}}$ is normalized by $1/\sqrt N$ in (7) and (A.7), so this difference equals $X_{n,M_N}/\sqrt N$, not $X_{n,M_N}$. A correct construction would define $X_{n,M_N}$ as $\sqrt N$ times the increment of $P_N^{\mathrm{lin}}$ and then state the resulting coupling in terms of $\sup_k \|\sum_{i\le k}X_{i,M_N}-\sqrt N\,W(k/N)\|$. As written, the proof of Corollary 1 and the subsequent results that rely on it (Theorem 5.1 and Remark 2) are incomplete.
  3. [Section 6, proof of Theorem 6.1, equations (25)–(26)] The proof applies the coupling of Theorem 4.1 to the process $P_{k_N,N}$ on $\lambda\in[0,1]$, but equation (25) evaluates $P_{k_N,N}((N+k)/k_N)$ for $k$ up to $k_N$; for $k=k_N$ the argument equals $1+N/k_N>1$, so the process is used outside its domain and outside the range of the approximation. There is also a scaling inconsistency: by the definition $P_{k_N,N}(\lambda)=N^{-1/2}\sum_{i\le\lambda k_N}\varepsilon_i$, the quantity $P_{k_N,N}(N/k_N)$ equals $N^{-1/2}\sum_{i\le N}\varepsilon_i=O_P(1)$, so the displayed identity $\bar\gamma_2=\sqrt{k_N/N}\,\|P_{k_N,N}(N/k_N)\|$ would be of order $N^{\zeta/2}O_P(1)$, whereas the statistic $\bar\gamma_2=\|N^{-1/2}\sum_{i\le N}\varepsilon_i\|$ is $O_P(1)$. The factor $\sqrt{k_N/N}$ in (25) and in the definition of $\bar\gamma_2$ appears to be spurious, and the argument would need an explicit extension of the coupling to the growing interval $[0,1+N^{-\zeta}]$ or a different decomposition. Without this, the level and consistency claims of the monitoring scheme are not established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Information, first paragraph of Appendix A] The sentence containing "in all of of the Supplementary Information" has a duplicated word.
  2. [Supplementary Information, Lemma B.1] Lemma B.1 states the bound with $\bar\tau=10\rho$, but its proof derives the sharper exponent $5\rho/2$; the text should reconcile these exponents, since Theorem 5.1 compares $\tau'$ with $(4-q)\tau/4$.
  3. [Section 6, Assumption 5] Assumption 5 is numbered (i), (iii), (iv) without a (ii); renumber for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Theorem 4.1 is deduced from explicit assumptions via independent external results; own-work citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 4.1, is proved by a three-step chain (Lemmas A.1, A.3, A.4) that reduces the function-valued partial sum process to a high-dimensional discretization, applies an external Gaussian approximation (Lemma B.2, declared a direct consequence of Theorem 3.27 in [40]), controls covariance proximity with matrix perturbation results ([41]), and bounds the discretization error of the Brownian motion using modulus-of-continuity estimates ([39], [42]). None of these steps normalizes W to PN or fits parameters to data: the long-run covariance (9) is defined from the latent functions X1, X2, ... before the theorem, and Assumptions 1 and 2 are stated as hypotheses rather than as consequences of the conclusion. The paper's self-citations ([61], [63]) occur only in the monitoring discussion, as a comparison method and as a separate application of Corollary 1; they are not used to justify Theorem 4.1 or Corollaries 1-3. The Gaussian approximation in Lemma B.2 is asserted rather than reproduced, and the verification that Theorem 3.27 of [40] applies to the non-stationary triangular array with growing dimension q = |GN| is only sketched; that is a legitimate correctness or completeness concern, but it is not circularity, because the cited result is independent external support and the target inequality (A.16) is not shown to be equivalent to the assumptions by construction. No fitted-input-called-prediction, self-definitional, or author-imported uniqueness pattern is present. The circularity burden is therefore not met; the honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data: τ, C, ρ, ς are existence constants chosen in the proof, not estimated from observations. The only nontrivial inputs are the domain assumptions and external theorems listed above. No new entities (particles, forces, hidden variables) are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Banach-valued Brownian motion in C0 exists and has the stated covariance and coupling properties.
    Invoked in Theorem 4.1 and Section 3.2, relying on Kuelbs (1973) [20].
  • standard math Theorem 2.2.4 of van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) gives moment bounds for the modulus of continuity of stochastic processes in terms of packing numbers.
    Used in Lemma A.2 and Lemma B.1 to control discretization errors and fourth moments.
  • standard math Theorem 3.27 of Dehling, Mikosch, and Sørensen (2002) provides a Prokhorov bound N^{-1/20} q^3 for high-dimensional α-mixing triangular arrays.
    The load-bearing Gaussian approximation in Lemma B.2 and Lemma A.3; the paper does not reproduce the theorem statement.
  • standard math Yoshihara (1978) moment inequality for sums of strongly mixing random variables.
    Used to bound fourth moments of partial sums in Lemmas A.2 and A.3.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 1 and 2 (polynomial α-mixing, J-th moments, Hölder smoothness, approximation error N^{-γ}, domain growth and tail conditions).
    These are the statistical model conditions; if they fail, Theorem 4.1 does not apply to the intended sparse FDA examples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prokhorov Metric Convergence of the Partial Sum Process for Reconstructed Functional Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3EXVNGW

@misc{pith2026250621172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prokhorov Metric Convergence of the Partial Sum Process for Reconstructed Functional Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3EXVNGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21172}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by applications in functional data analysis, we study the partial sum process of sparsely observed, random functions. A key novelty of our analysis are bounds for the distributional distance between the limit Brownian motion and the entire partial sum process in the function space. To measure the distance between distributions, we employ the Prokhorov and Wasserstein metrics. We show that these bounds have important probabilistic implications, including strong invariance principles and new couplings between the partial sums and their Gaussian limits. Our results are formulated for weakly dependent, nonstationary time series in the Banach space of d-dimensional, continuous functions. Mathematically, our approach rests on a new, two-step proof strategy: First, using entropy bounds from empirical process theory, we replace the function-valued partial sum process by a high-dimensional discretization. Second, using Gaussian approximations for weakly dependent, high-dimensional vectors, we obtain bounds on the distance. As a statistical application of our coupling results, we validate an open-ended monitoring scheme for sparse functional data. Existing probabilistic tools were not appropriate for this task.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Dehling, T

    H. Dehling, T. Mikosch, M. Sørensen, Empirical Process Techniques for Dependent Data, Birkh¨ auser, New York, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [1]

    Aston, C

    M. Aston, C. Kirch, Detecting and estimating changes in dependent functional data, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 109 (2012) 204–220

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    Gromenko, P

    O. Gromenko, P. Kokoszka, M. Reimherr, Detection of change in the spatiotemporal mean function, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 79 (2017) 29–50

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    A. Aue, G. Rice, O. Sonmez, Detecting and dating structural breaks in functional data without dimension reduction, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology) 80 (2018) pp. 509– 529

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    S. Kim, Z. Zhao, X. Shao, Nonparametric functional central limit theo- rem for time series with application to self-normalized confidence inter- val, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 36 (2015) 277–290

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Dette, K

    H. Dette, K. Kokot, S. Volgushev, Testing relevant hypotheses in func- tional time series via self-normalization, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 82 (2020) 629–660

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Dette, T

    H. Dette, T. Kutta, Detecting structural breaks in eigensystems of func- tional time series, Electronic Journal of Statistics 15 (2021) 944 – 983

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Bugni, P

    F. Bugni, P. Hall, J. Horowitz, G. Neumann, Goodness-of-fit tests for functional, Econometrics Journal 12 (2009) S1–S18

    work page 2009

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    Horv´ ath, P

    L. Horv´ ath, P. Kokoszka, G. Rice, Testing stationarity of functional time series, Journal of Econometrics 179 (2014) 66–82. 33

    2014

  2. [9]

    Cuesta-Albertos, E

    J. Cuesta-Albertos, E. Garcia-Portugu´ es, M. Febrero-Bande, W. Gonz´ alez-Manteiga, Goodness of fit tests for the functional linear model based on randomly projected empirical processes, The Annals of Statistics 47 (2019) 439–467

    2019

  3. [10]

    Hafouta, Convergence rates in the functional CLT for α-mixing tri- angular arrays, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 161 (2023) 247–264

    Y. Hafouta, Convergence rates in the functional CLT for α-mixing tri- angular arrays, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 161 (2023) 247–264

    2023

  4. [11]

    Bosq, Linear Processes in Function Spaces, Springer, 2000

    D. Bosq, Linear Processes in Function Spaces, Springer, 2000

    2000

  5. [12]

    Horv´ ath, P

    L. Horv´ ath, P. Kokoszka, Inference for Functional Data with Applica- tions, Springer, New York, 2012

    2012

  6. [13]

    Hsing, R

    T. Hsing, R. Eubank, Theoretical Foundations of Functional Data Anal- ysis, with an Introduction to Linear Operators, Wiley, 2015

    2015

  7. [14]

    F. Merlev` ede, On the central limit theorem and its weak invariance principle for strongly mixing sequences with values in a Hilbert space via martingale approximation, Journal of Theoretical Probability 16 (2003) 625–653

    2003

  8. [15]

    Berkes, L

    I. Berkes, L. Horv´ ath, G. Rice, Weak invariance principles for sums of dependent random functions, Stochastic Processes and their Applica- tions 123 (2013) 385–403

    2013

  9. [16]

    C. Cuny, F. Merlev` ede, On martingale approximations and the quenched weak invariance principle, The Annals of Probability 42 (2) (2014) 760– 793

    2014

  10. [17]

    J. Lu, W. B. Wu, Z. Xiao, L. Xu, Almost sure invariance principle of β-mixing time series in Hilbert space, arXiv:2209.12535 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Dette, K

    H. Dette, K. Kokot, A. Aue, Functional data analysis in the Banach space of continuous functions, The Annals of Statistics 48 (2020) 1168 – 1192

    2020

  12. [19]

    Dette, K

    H. Dette, K. Kokot, Detecting relevant differences in the covariance operators of functional time series: a sup-norm approach, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 74(2) (2022) 195–231. 34

    2022

  13. [20]

    Kuelbs, The invariance principle for Banach space valued random variables, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 3 (1973) 161–172

    J. Kuelbs, The invariance principle for Banach space valued random variables, Journal of Multivariate Analysis 3 (1973) 161–172

    1973

  14. [21]

    Dehling, Limit theorems for sums of weakly dependent Banach space valued random variables, Z

    H. Dehling, Limit theorems for sums of weakly dependent Banach space valued random variables, Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete 63 (1983) 393–432

    1983

  15. [22]

    J. D. Samur, On the invariance principle for stationary φ-mixing tri- angular arrays with infinitely divisible limits, Probability Theory and Related Fields 75 (1987) 245–259

    1987

  16. [23]

    Kuelbs, W

    J. Kuelbs, W. Philipp, Almost sure invariance principles for partial sums of mixing B -valued random variable, Annals of Probability 8 (1980) 1003–1036

    1980

  17. [24]

    R. M. Burton, A. R. Dabrowski, H. Dehling, An invariance principle for weakly associated random vectors, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 23 (1986) 301–306

    1986

  18. [25]

    R. C. Bradley, Introduction to Strong Mixing Conditions, Vol. 1,2,3, Kendrick Press, 2007

    2007

  19. [26]

    Yao, H.-G

    F. Yao, H.-G. M¨ uller, J.-L. Wang, Functional data analysis for sparse longitudinal data, Journal of the American Statistical Association 100 (2005) 577–590

    2005

  20. [27]

    Zhang, J

    X. Zhang, J. Wang, From sparse to dense functional data and beyond, The Annals of Statistics 44 (5) (2016) 2281–2321

    2016

  21. [28]

    Dehling, W

    H. Dehling, W. Philipp, Almost Sure Invariance Principles for Weakly Dependent Vector-Valued Random Variables, The Annals of Probability 10 (3) (1982) 689 – 701

    1982

  22. [29]

    Dedecker, F

    J. Dedecker, F. Merlev´ ede, On the almost sure invariance principle for stationary sequences of Hilbert-valued random variables, Dependence in Probability, Analysis and Number Theory (2010) 157–175

    2010

  23. [30]

    F. Mies, A. Steland, Sequential gaussian approximation for nonstation- ary time series in high dimensions, Bernoulli 29 (2023) 3114–3140

    2023

  24. [31]

    Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures, Wiley, New York, 1968

    P. Billingsley, Convergence of Probability Measures, Wiley, New York, 1968. 35

    1968

  25. [32]

    Janson, S

    S. Janson, S. Kaijser, Higher moments of Banach space valued random variables, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society 238 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    Panaretos, Y

    V. Panaretos, Y. Zemel, An Invitation to Statistics in Wasserstein Space, Springer, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    A. L. Gibbs, F. E. Su, On choosing and bounding probability metrics, International Statistical Review 70 (2002) 419–435

    2002

  28. [35]

    Wu, Strong invariance principles for dependent random variables, The Annals of Probability 35 (2007) 2294–2320

    W. Wu, Strong invariance principles for dependent random variables, The Annals of Probability 35 (2007) 2294–2320

    2007

  29. [36]

    H¨ ormann, P

    S. H¨ ormann, P. Kokoszka, Weakly dependent functional data, The An- nals of Statistics 38 (2010) 1845–1884

    2010

  30. [37]

    Chen, H.-G

    K. Chen, H.-G. M¨ uller, Modeling repeated functional observations, Jour- nal of the American Statistical Association 107 (2012) 1599–1609

    2012

  31. [38]

    Berger, P

    M. Berger, P. Hermann, H. Holzmann, From dense to sparse design: Op- timal rates under the supremum norm for estimating the mean function in functional data analysis, arXiv:2306.04550 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A. W. van der Vaart, J. A. Wellner, Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes. With Applications to Statistics, Springer Series in Statistics., New York, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    R. T. Powers, E. Stormer, Free states of the canonical anticommutation relations, Communications in Mathematical Physics 16 (1970) 1–33

    1970

  34. [42]

    de Acosta, On the functional form of Levy’s modulus of continu- ity for Brownian motion, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 69 (1985) 567–579

    A. de Acosta, On the functional form of Levy’s modulus of continu- ity for Brownian motion, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 69 (1985) 567–579

    1985

  35. [43]

    P. J. Huber, E. M. Ronchetti, Robust Statistics, Wiley, Hoboken, 2009

    2009

  36. [44]

    Z. Liu, Z. Wang, Wasserstein convergence rates in the invariance prin- ciple for sequential dynamical systems, arXiv:2307.13913 (2023). 36

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H. C. P. Berbee, Random walks with stationary increments and renewal theory, Mathematisches Centrum, Amsterdam, 1979

    1979

  38. [46]

    Berkes, W

    I. Berkes, W. Philipp, Almost sure invariance principles for independent and weakly dependent random vectors, Annals of Probability 7 (1979) 29–54

    1979

  39. [47]

    Dehling, A note on a theorem of berkes and philipp, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 62 (1983) 39–42

    H. Dehling, A note on a theorem of berkes and philipp, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 62 (1983) 39–42

    1983

  40. [48]

    Einmahl, Toward a general law of the Iterated Logarithm in Banach space, The Annals of Probability 21 (1993) 2012–2045

    U. Einmahl, Toward a general law of the Iterated Logarithm in Banach space, The Annals of Probability 21 (1993) 2012–2045

    1993

  41. [49]

    Ledoux, M

    M. Ledoux, M. Talagrand, Probability in Banach Spaces: Isoperimetry and Processes, Springer, 1991

    1991

  42. [50]

    Fernique, Regularit´ e des trajectoires des fonctions al´ eatoires gaussi- ennes, in: P

    X. Fernique, Regularit´ e des trajectoires des fonctions al´ eatoires gaussi- ennes, in: P. Hennequin (Ed.), Ecole d’Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint- Flour IV—1974, Vol. 480 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975

    1974

  43. [51]

    C.-S. J. Chu, M. Stinchcombe, H. White, Monitoring structural change, Econometrica 64 (1996) 1045–1065

    1996

  44. [52]

    Horv´ ath, M

    L. Horv´ ath, M. Huˇ skov´ a, P. Kokoszka, J. Steinebach, Monitoring changes in linear models, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 126 (2003) 225–251

    2003

  45. [53]

    A. Aue, L. Horv´ ath, M. Huˇ skov´ a, P. Kokoszka, Change–point monitor- ing in linear models with conditionally heteroskedastic errors, Econo- metrics Journal 9 (2006) 373–403

    2006

  46. [54]

    G¨ osmann, T

    J. G¨ osmann, T. Kley, H. Dette, A new approach for open-end sequential change point monitoring, Journal of Time Series Analysis 42 (2021) 63– 84

    2021

  47. [55]

    A. Aue, C. Kirch, The state of cumulative sum sequential change point testing seventy years after Page, Biometrika (2023+)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Koml´ os, P

    J. Koml´ os, P. Major, G. Tusn´ ady, An approximation of partial sums of independent R.V.’s and the sample DF.I, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrschein- lichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 32 (1975) 111–131. 37

    1975

  49. [57]

    Koml´ os, P

    J. Koml´ os, P. Major, G. Tusn´ ady, An approximation of partial sums of independent R.V.’s and the sample DF.II, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Wahrschein- lichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 34 (1976) 33–58

    1976

  50. [58]

    Eberlein, On strong invariance principles under dependence assump- tions, The Annals of Probability 14 (1986) 260–270

    E. Eberlein, On strong invariance principles under dependence assump- tions, The Annals of Probability 14 (1986) 260–270

    1986

  51. [59]

    Horv´ ath, G

    L. Horv´ ath, G. Rice, Extensions of some classical methods in change point analysis, Test 23 (2014) 219–255

    2014

  52. [60]

    A. Aue, S. H¨ ormann, L. Horv´ ath, M. Huˇ skov´ a, Dependent functional linear models with applications to monitoring structural change, Statis- tica Sinica 24 (2014) 1043–1073

    2014

  53. [61]

    Kutta, P

    T. Kutta, P. Kokoszka, Monitoring of functional time series, Bernoulli- Accepted for publication (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    G¨ osmann, New aspects of sequential change point detection, Ph.D

    J. G¨ osmann, New aspects of sequential change point detection, Ph.D. thesis, Ruhr-University Bochum (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Kutta, A

    T. Kutta, A. Jach, P. Kokoszka, Monitoring panels of sparse functional data, Journal of Time Series Analysis (2024). doi:10.1111/jtsa. 12796

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Yoshihara, Moment inequalities for mixing sequences, Kodai Math

    K. Yoshihara, Moment inequalities for mixing sequences, Kodai Math. J. 1 (1978) 316–328

    1978

  57. [65]

    E. F. Schuster, Estimation of a probability density function and its derivatives, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 40 (4) (1969) 1187– 1195

    1969

  58. [66]

    Schuster, S

    E. Schuster, S. Yakowitz, Contributions to the theory of nonparamet- ric regression, with application to system identification, The Annals of Statistics 7 (1979) 139–149

    1979

  59. [67]

    P. K. Bhattacharya, Estimation of a probability density function and its derivatives, Sankhya: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A 29 (4) (1967) 373–382

    1967

  60. [68]

    A. Aue, S. H¨ ormann, L. Horv´ ath, M. Reimherr, Break detection in the covariance structure of multivariate time series models, The Annals of Statistics 37 (2009) 4046–4087. 38

    2009

  61. [69]

    Berkes, R

    I. Berkes, R. Gabrys, L. Horv´ ath, P. Kokoszka, Detecting changes in the mean of functional observations, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 71 (2009) 927–946

    2009

  62. [70]

    Dette, P

    H. Dette, P. Quanz, Detecting relevant changes in the spatiotemporal mean function, Journal of Time Series Analysis 44 (2023) 505–532

    2023

  63. [71]

    St¨ ohr, J

    C. St¨ ohr, J. Aston, C. Kirch, Detecting changes in the covariance struc- ture of functional time series with application to fMRI data, Economet- rics and Statistics 18 (2021) 44–62

    2021

  64. [72]

    A. Aue, G. Rice, G. Sonmez, Structural break analysis for spectrum and trace of covariance operators, Environmetrics 31 (2020) e2617

    2020

  65. [73]

    R. C. Bradley, Basic properties of strong mixing conditions, in: E. Eber- lein, M. S. Taqqu (Eds.), Dependence in Probability and Statistics, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1986, pp. 165–192

    1986

  66. [74]

    Volkonskii, Y

    V. Volkonskii, Y. Rozanov, Some limit theorems for random functions I, Theory of Probability & Its Applications 4 (1959) 178–197. 39 Supplementary Information Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 4.1 We begin by summarizing the notation introduced in the paper and used throughout the ...

    1959

  67. [75]

    Step 1: π∞(PN , Pdis N ) = O(N −τ ). (A.4)

  68. [76]

    Step 2: π∞(P dis N , Wdis) = O(N −τ ). (A.5)

  69. [77]

    (A.6) Each of these steps is non-trivial

    Step 3: π∞(W dis, W) = O(N −τ ). (A.6) Each of these steps is non-trivial. For the first step, we need to demonstrate that PN and P dis N are uniformly close with high probability. This requires finite sample bounds from empirical process theory to control the distance of stoc...

  70. [78]

    max i E|⃗ vi|J ≤ max i,M E∥Xi,M ∥J ≤ C

    There exists a C >0 s.t. max i E|⃗ vi|J ≤ max i,M E∥Xi,M ∥J ≤ C. The last inequality follows by combining Conditions ii) and iii) of As- sumption 1. 10

  71. [79]

    , ⃗ vN are strongly mixing

    The vectors ⃗ v1, . . . , ⃗ vN are strongly mixing. Indeed, since they are measurable transforms of Xi,MN (i.e., of Xi and δMN ) they inherit the decay of the mixing coefficients implied by Assumption 1 Conditions i) and ii), which means that αv,N (n) ≤ Cn −ν, with ν >3 + 9 J ...

Pith tools

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