Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 41 references

A robust and scalable estimation for high-dimensional volatility models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that high-dimensional BEKK-ARCH volatility models can be estimated at the minimax-optimal rate under heavy tails by truncating returns and solving an ℓ1-regularized least squares problem on the model's equivalent vector au

desk verdict Useful estimator and upper bounds for high-dimensional BEKK-ARCH, but the minimax lower-bound proof has a T-cancelling algebraic error and the recovery step depends on an unproved assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.17578 v3 pith:HI75BB7V submitted 2025-10-20 math.ST stat.TH

Kejun Chen , Yuchang Lin , Qianqian Zhu This is my paper
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62F3562M1062H1262J07
keywords BEKK-ARCHdatatruncationheavy-tailedtimeseriesregularizedleastsquaresvech-VARrepresentationminimaxoptimalratehigh-dimensionalvolatilitymodelselection
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 show that a high-dimensional BEKK-ARCH volatility model—where conditional covariances are quadratic functions of past returns—can be estimated reliably when the data are heavy-tailed and the number of assets is large. The strategy is to rewrite the model as a vector autoregression on the half-vectorized outer products of returns, truncate the raw returns to tame outliers, and solve an ℓ1-regularized least squares problem. The paper proves non-asymptotic error bounds for this estimator that match a minimax lower bound, up to logarithmic factors, under only a finite (4+4ε)-moment condition and geometric α-mixing. It also shows how to map the estimated VAR coefficients back to the original BEKK matrices, and establishes consistency of a BIC for lag order and a ridge-type rule for the number of BEKK components. If the central claims are right, heavy-tailed high-dimensional volatility estimation is both computationally tractable and statistically near-optimal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the vech-VAR representation of BEKK-ARCH and the padding/rearrangement operators. The duplication matrix D_N and its pseudo-inverse map the symmetric matrix recursion into a sparse multivariate regression on half-vectorized quadratic products of returns. The padding operator H(Φ,W) and the rearrangement operator R(·) move between the vech coefficients and the Kronecker sums Σ A_ik⊗A_ik; the minimal-rank criterion selects the correct split, and spectral decomposition of R(H(Φ,W)) recovers the matrices A_ik. Data truncation before forming the regression makes the estimator robust, and ℓ1 regularization exploits row-wise sparsity.

What would settle it

A simulation-based test: generate BEKK-ARCH data with N=20 and t_4.2 innovations, estimate Φ_i at increasing T, solve the convex rank-minimizing padding problem (8), and record the ratio of the padding error ∥H(bΦ_i,ĉW_i)-H(Φ*_i,W*_i)∥_F to the VAR error ∥bΦ_i-Φ*_i∥_F. If this ratio grows with T or fails to stay bounded, Assumption 3 is false and the claimed rate for bA_ik does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the truncated, ℓ1-regularized least squares estimator on the vech-VAR form estimates the BEKK-ARCH coefficient matrices at the minimax-optimal rate (log(pd+1)/T_eff)^{ε/(1+ε)}, and that the inverse padding/rearrangement map in Section 2.3 recovers Ω and each A_ik at the same rate. Under row-wise sparsity, the bound is ∥bΘ−Θ*∥_{2,∞} ≲ s^{3/2}∥Θ*∥_{1,∞} λ_min^{-1}(Γ_x) (M^{1/ε} log(pd+1)/T_eff)^{ε/(1+ε)}, with probability tending to one under geometric α-mixing and a (4+4ε)-moment condition. The key identifiability device is the minimal-rank property of the rearranged padded matrix R(H(Φ_i,W_i)); its nonzero eigenpairs are (∥A_ik∥_F^2, vec(A_ik)/∥A_ik∥_F), giving

Load-bearing premise

Everything about recovering the BEKK matrices from the estimated VAR coefficients rests on Assumption 3—that the padding step does not amplify the estimation error of the VAR coefficients—which is stated rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Replacing likelihood-based estimation, which repeatedly inverts N×N covariance matrices, with a convex least squares problem makes high-dimensional BEKK-ARCH fitting computationally scalable, as demonstrated for N=100.
  • The matching minimax bounds mean that no other estimator can achieve a faster convergence rate under the same moment and sparsity assumptions, so the method is not paying a statistical price for its computational simplicity.
  • The recovery step transfers the rate from the vech-VAR coefficients to the original BEKK matrices, so practitioners can interpret the estimated model in standard BEKK form.
  • The BIC and ridge-type rank selector are consistent under heavy tails, giving automatic choice of lag order and number of BEKK components.
  • In two out-of-sample portfolio applications, the method yields better information ratios and lower computation time than untruncated baselines and standard CCC/DCC benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Assumption 3 is true, the same padding argument should also work when the vech-VAR coefficients are estimated by other robust procedures such as adaptive Huber or quantile regression; a provable Lipschitz bound for the padding map would turn this into a general robustness lemma.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the truncation threshold τ and penalty λ are chosen by rolling validation rather than the closed-form expressions in Theorem 1; a data-driven selection rule with proven rate would make the method fully automatic.
  • Because the vech-VAR form is linear, the truncation-plus-penalized-LSE pipeline likely transfers to other linearizable volatility specifications such as DCC-type dynamics; testing that extension would be a direct follow-up.
  • The rate (log/T)^{ε/(1+ε)} interpolates between sub-Gaussian and heavier tails; a natural stress test is whether the same rate holds under only (2+2ε) moments or with a tanh-based truncation.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a robust and scalable estimation framework for high-dimensional BEKK-ARCH models with heavy-tailed innovations. The method vectorizes the BEKK-ARCH model into a vech-VAR form, applies elementwise truncation to the returns, and estimates the VAR coefficients by an ℓ1,1-regularized least squares estimator. The authors state non-asymptotic error bounds in Theorem 1, claim a matching minimax lower bound in Theorem 2, and use an inverse mapping to recover the original BEKK matrices (Corollary 1) under a stated Assumption 3. They also propose a BIC-type order selector and a ridge-type component selector with consistency results (Theorems 3 and 4), and illustrate the methodology in simulations and two empirical portfolio applications.

Significance. If the main claims were fully established, this would be a valuable contribution: the estimator is convex and scalable, the upper-bound analysis is detailed and does not rely on sub-Gaussian assumptions, and the paper supplies a complete algorithmic pipeline, code, simulations, and empirical applications. The truncation-plus-regularized-LSE idea is sensible for heavy-tailed volatility models, and the row-wise sparsity structure is a reasonable high-dimensional restriction. However, the headline minimax optimality claim is not currently supported: the lower-bound construction in Theorem 2 contains an algebraic error, and the lower bound is established over a class that is larger than the BEKK-constrained class considered in the upper bound. In addition, the recovery of the BEKK coefficient matrices rests on an unverified assumption. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims, so the manuscript needs substantial revision before the results can be accepted as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Assumption 3 and Corollary 1] The claimed minimax lower bound does not follow from the construction. In the proof, the constructed coefficient satisfies θ_S^* = s^{-ε/(1+ε)} 1_s, so ∥θ_S^*∥_2 = s^{1/2 - ε/(1+ε)}, which is independent of T, γ, and M after substituting M = c^{2+2ε}s^{2ε}γ. The displayed chain λ_min^{-1}(Γ_φ) c^2 s^{ε/(1+ε)}γ √s = λ_min^{-1}(Γ_φ) M^{1/(1+ε)}√s γ^{ε/(1+ε)} is algebraically incorrect; substituting M gives c^2 s^{2ε/(1+ε)}√s γ for the right-hand side, not c^2 s^{ε/(1+ε)}γ√s. Thus the two-point construction yields only a constant lower bound, not the rate (log T/T)^{2ε/(1+ε)}. Moreover, the lower-bound class P_y permits only 2+2ε moments and is a general α-mixing class, whereas the upper bound in Theorem 1 is for the BEKK-ARCH submodel with 4+4ε moments and row-wise sparsity; a lower bound over a larger class does not establish minimax optimality over the smaller class. The minimax-optimali
  2. [Theorem 1, Lemma B.5] Assumption 3 states that ∥H(bΦ_i, Ŵ_i) - H(Φ_i^*, W_i^*)∥_F ≲ ∥bΦ_i - Φ_i^*∥_F, but this is asserted without proof or verification. This is exactly the property needed to ensure that the nuclear-norm relaxation (8) does not amplify the estimation error of bΦ_i. Corollary 1 and Theorem 4 both rely on this assumption. As written, the manuscript cannot claim that the recovered bA_ik converge at the same rate as bΘ unless Assumption 3 is verified under explicit conditions on the operators H and R, or is stated clearly as an additional unverified structural condition. The simulations in Section 5.3 are described as 'confirming' Assumption 3, but no diagnostic of the ratio ∥H(bΦ_i, Ŵ_i)-H(Φ_i^*, W_i^*)∥_F / ∥bΦ_i - Φ_i^*∥_F is reported.
  3. [Section 3.2, BIC penalty] The sample-size condition in Theorem 1 is stated as T ≳ log(pd+1), but the proof of Lemma B.5 requires the localized restricted eigenvalue to be bounded below: ν ≥ λ_min(Γ_x) - C(1+γ)^2 s∥S - Γ_x∥∞. Combined with the rate in Lemma B.1, this imposes s (M^{1/ε} log(pd+1)/T_eff)^{ε/(1+ε)} ≤ c λ_min(Γ_x). This is not implied by T ≳ log(pd+1) when s is allowed to grow with the dimension. The theorem statement should include the explicit smallness condition on s, M, and T, or a justification that s is fixed under the row-wise sparsity assumption.
  4. [Throughout, notation] The selection consistency in Theorem 3 relies on Assumption 4, which requires the BIC penalty scale ι_d to satisfy ι_d ≍ s^3 M^{1/(1+ε)}. For the consistency proof this is plausible when s and M are fixed constants, but in the implementation Section 3.2 the authors fix ι_d = 0.05 and ε = 0.1 regardless of dimension. The gap between the theoretical penalty scale and the fixed tuning constant should be discussed; otherwise the reader cannot tell whether the reported model-selection consistency is a property of the implemented BIC or only of a BIC with oracle scaling.
  5. [typos] The paper uses d for both the vech dimension N(N+1)/2 and as a generic dimension, which is sometimes confusing. For example, in Theorem 2 the Frobenius lower bound is written as sN^2 after using d = N(N+1)/2; this is fine but should be explicit. Also, the notation 'T/logT ζ−2' in Theorem 2 is ambiguous and should be written as T ζ^2 / log T (or with parentheses) to make the condition interpretable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [typos] There are several typos: 'Thoerem 3' in the proof of Theorem 3, 'inequaility' in the proof of Theorem 3, and 'investiment' in Section 6.2. These should be corrected.
  2. [Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 takes as input {K_i}_{i=1}^p but step 4 uses bK_i from the ridge-type selector. Clarify whether K_i in the input is the true value or the estimated value, and how bK_i is passed to the algorithm.
  3. [Section 5.3] The text says the simulation results 'confirm that Assumption 3 holds' but no direct evidence is provided in the figures or tables. A plot of the padding error versus the estimation error, or a table of the ratio, would be helpful.
  4. [Tables 3 and 4] The empirical comparisons report point estimates for annualized mean, standard deviation, and information ratio, but no standard errors or significance tests are given. Since the differences in IR are often modest (e.g., 1.03 vs. 0.91), standard errors would strengthen the conclusions.
  5. [Eq. (8)] The nuclear-norm relaxation in (8) is applied to R(H(bΦ_i,W)), which is symmetric but need not be positive semidefinite when bΦ_i is not the true matrix. The paper uses nuclear norm in the form of sum of singular values; this is fine, but it should be noted explicitly to avoid confusion with trace norm for non-PSD matrices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main bounds are derived, though Theorem 2 contains a non-circular algebraic gap and Assumption 3 is an unproven assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central estimation bound (Theorem 1) is derived through a standard chain: truncation moment bounds (Lemmas B.1–B.2), cone arguments (Lemma B.3), and localized restricted eigenvalue control (Lemmas B.5–B.6). The rate is not assumed as the conclusion; tau and lambda are chosen to make the lemmas close, and the final display follows by algebra. Corollary 1 is conditional on Assumption 3, which is explicitly stated as an assumption rather than derived; this is a genuine omission/limitation, but it is not circular because the paper does not pretend to prove Assumption 3 from the desired rate. The minimax lower bound proof (Theorem 2) contains what appears to be an algebraic error: after substituting M = c^{2+2ε} s^{2ε} γ into the constructed coefficient norm, the norm is independent of T, so the claimed (log T/T)^{ε/(1+ε)} lower bound does not follow. That is a correctness problem in the minimax claim, not a circular reduction: the proof does not define the target rate and then reuse it as an input. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz-smuggling was found; the V AR representation and ridge/BIC constructions are either derived in-paper or cited to external prior work. The paper's self-contained parts are therefore not circular, even though the minimax optimality claim is not adequately supported by the supplied proof.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard high-dimensional time-series assumptions (moments, mixing, sparsity, positive-definite Gram), plus several assumptions introduced specifically for this paper (orthogonality/ordering of BEKK components, padding-error control, penalty scales). The estimator itself has five tunable numbers (λ, τ, ε, ι_d, α) chosen by validation or fixed constants.

free parameters (5)
  • λ (ℓ1 penalty) = selected by MSFE grid; theory: ≍ s∥Θ*∥_{1,∞}(M^{1/ε} log(pd+1)/T_eff)^{ε/(1+ε)}
    Penalty in objective (5); theoretical optimal value depends on unknown s, ∥Θ*∥, M.
  • τ (truncation threshold) = selected by MSFE grid on [median|y_{t,j}|, max|y_{t,j}|]
    Truncation parameter; theory requires τ≍(M T_eff/log(pd+1))^{1/(4+4ε)} with unknown M.
  • ε (moment exponent) = 0.1 (recommended)
    Used in Assumption 2(i), in theoretical rates, and in the BIC penalty; fixed by hand in implementation.
  • ι_d (BIC penalty scale) = 0.05 (recommended)
    Penalty scale in BIC (9); Theorem 3 requires ι_d≍s^3 M^{1/(1+ε)}, not shown to match the fixed constant.
  • α (ridge selector scale) = 1e-3 (recommended)
    Scale in c(N,T)=α N(N p log(T)/T_eff)^{ε/(1+ε)} for the ridge-type selector; Theorem 4 requires c(N,T) in an interval depending on unknown eigenvalues.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Finite (4+4ε)-th moment: E|r_{t,j}|^{4+4ε} ≤ M
    Assumption 2(i); needed for truncation bias and concentration inequalities.
  • domain assumption Geometric α-mixing with α(ℓ)=O(ζ^ℓ)
    Assumption 2(ii); needed for concentration inequality and effective sample size T_eff.
  • domain assumption λ_min(Γ_x) > 0
    Invoked in Theorem 1; standard restricted eigenvalue condition for sparse VAR, not verified from data.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: pairwise orthogonal A_ik and decreasing Frobenius norms
    Identifiability of the Kronecker sum; Proposition 1 justifies orthogonality, ordering is a mild constraint.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3: padding error bounded by estimation error
    Unproven; load-bearing for Corollary 1 and Theorem 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumptions 4–5: penalty scale and minimum signal strength
    Ensure BIC consistency; stated in terms of unknown s, M, φ_p and not checked in implementation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A robust and scalable estimation for high-dimensional volatility models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HI75BB7V

@misc{pith2026251017578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A robust and scalable estimation for high-dimensional volatility models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HI75BB7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.17578}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a robust and computationally efficient estimation framework for high-dimensional volatility models in the BEKK-ARCH class. The proposed approach employs data truncation to ensure robustness against heavy-tailed distributions and utilizes a regularized least squares method for efficient optimization in high-dimensional settings. Non-asymptotic error bounds are established for the resulting estimators under heavy-tailed regimes, and the minimax optimal convergence rate is derived. Moreover, a robust BIC and a Ridge-type estimator are introduced for selecting the model order and the number of BEKK components, respectively, with their selection consistency established under heavy-tailed settings. Simulation studies demonstrate finite-sample performance of the proposed method, and two empirical applications illustrate its practical utility. The results show that the new framework outperforms existing alternatives in both computational speed and forecasting accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.17578 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Estimation errors in the ℓ2,∞-norm and Frobenius norm for the regularized LSE, with and without truncation, versus sample size T for (N, s) = (20, 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Estimation errors in the ℓ2,∞-norm and Frobenius norm for the regularized LSE, with and without truncation, versus T for (N, s) = (100, 10). 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Estimation errors in the Frobenius norm for three estimators of conditional covariance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimation errors in the Frobenius norm for three estimators of conditional covariance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimation errors of Ωb and Ab ik in the Frobenius norm, versus sample size T for (N, s) = (20, 3). 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimation errors of Ωb and Ab ik in Frobenius norm versus T for (N, s) = (100, 10). 5.4 Model selection In this section, we assess the proposed model selection procedures in Section 3.2. Specifically, the lag order p is determined via the BIC-based criterion in (9), w…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aielli, G. P. (2013). Dynamic Conditional Correlation: On Properties and Estimation . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 31:282--299

    2013

  2. [2]

    Bauwens, L., Laurent, S., and Rombouts, J. V. (2006). Multivariate GARCH Models: a Survey . Journal of Applied Econometrics , 21:79--109

    2006

  3. [3]

    and Teboulle, M

    Beck, A. and Teboulle, M. (2009). A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems . SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences , 2:183--202

    2009

  4. [4]

    Behr, P., Guettler, A., and Truebenbach, F. (2012). Using Industry Momentum to Improve Portfolio Performance . Journal of Banking & Finance , 36:1414--1423

    2012

  5. [5]

    Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity . Journal of Econometrics , 31:307--327

    1986

  6. [6]

    Bollerslev, T. (1990). Modelling the Coherence in Short-run Nominal Exchange Rates: a Multivariate Generalized ARCH Model . The Review of Economics and Statistics , 72:498--505

    1990

  7. [7]

    F., and Wooldridge, J

    Bollerslev, T., Engle, R. F., and Wooldridge, J. M. (1988). A Capital Asset Pricing Model with Time-varying Covariances . Journal of Political Economy , 96:116--131

    1988

  8. [8]

    Bosq, D. (2012). Nonparametric Statistics for Stochastic Processes: Estimation and Prediction , volume 110. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    and Croux, C

    Boudt, K. and Croux, C. (2010). Robust M-estimation of Multivariate GARCH Models . Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 54:2459--2469

    2010

  2. [10]

    Boussama, F., Fuchs, F., and Stelzer, R. (2011). Stationarity and Geometric Ergodicity of BEKK Multivariate GARCH Models . Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 121:2331--2360

    2011

  3. [11]

    and McAleer, M

    Caporin, M. and McAleer, M. (2012). Do we really need both BEKK and DCC? A Tale of two Multivariate GARCH Models . Journal of Economic Surveys , 26:736--751

    2012

  4. [12]

    and Lieberman, O

    Comte, F. and Lieberman, O. (2003). Asymptotic Theory for Multivariate GARCH Processes . Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 84:61--84

    2003

  5. [13]

    Engle, R. (2002). Dynamic Conditional Correlation: A Simple Class of Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity Models . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 20:339--350

    2002

  6. [14]

    Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom inflation . Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , 50:987--1007

    1982

  7. [15]

    Engle, R. F. and Kroner, K. F. (1995). Multivariate Simultaneous Generalized ARCH . Econometric Theory , 11:122--150

    1995

  8. [16]

    F., Ledoit, O., and Wolf, M

    Engle, R. F., Ledoit, O., and Wolf, M. (2019). Large Dynamic Covariance Matrices . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 37:363--375

    2019

  9. [17]

    Fan, J., Wang, W., and Zhu, Z. (2021). A Shrinkage Principle for Heavy-tailed Data: High-dimensional Robust Low-rank Matrix Recovery . Annals of Statistics , 49:1239

    2021

  10. [18]

    Francq, C., Horvath, L., and Zakoian, J.-M. (2016). Variance Targeting Estimation of Multivariate GARCH Models . Journal of Financial Econometrics , 14:353--382

    2016

  11. [19]

    and Zako \" an, J.-M

    Francq, C. and Zako \" an, J.-M. (2016). Estimating Multivariate Volatility Models Equation by Equation . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 78:613--635

    2016

  12. [20]

    and Zakoian, J.-M

    Francq, C. and Zakoian, J.-M. (2019). GARCH models: Structure, Statistical Inference and Financial Applications . John Wiley & Sons

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hafner, C. M. and Preminger, A. (2009a). Asymptotic Theory for a Factor GARCH Model . Econometric Theory , 25:336--363

  14. [22]

    Hafner, C. M. and Preminger, A. (2009b). On Asymptotic Theory for Multivariate GARCH Models . Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 100:2044--2054

  15. [23]

    Huber, P. J. (1964). Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter . The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 35:73--101

    1964

  16. [24]

    and Bassett Jr, G

    Koenker, R. and Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles . Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , 46:33--50

    1978

  17. [25]

    and Saikkonen, P

    Lanne, M. and Saikkonen, P. (2007). A Multivariate Generalized Orthogonal Factor GARCH Model . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 25:61--75

    2007

  18. [26]

    and Mendelson, S

    Lugosi, G. and Mendelson, S. (2021). Robust Multivariate Mean Estimation: The Optimality of Trimmed Mean . The Annals of Statistics , 49:393--410

    2021

  19. [27]

    Muler, N., Pena, D., and Yohai, V. J. (2009). Robust Estimation for ARMA Models . The Annals of Statistics , 37:816--840

    2009

  20. [28]

    and Yohai, V

    Muler, N. and Yohai, V. J. (2002). Robust Estimates for ARCH Processes . Journal of Time Series Analysis , 23:341--375

    2002

  21. [29]

    Pakel, C., Shephard, N., Sheppard, K., and Engle, R. F. (2021). Fitting vast dimensional time-varying covariance models . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 39:652--668

    2021

  22. [30]

    Time Varying

    Qiao, W., Bu, D., Gibberd, A., Liao, Y., Wen, T., and Li, E. (2023). When “Time Varying” Volatility Meets “Transaction Cost” in Portfolio Selection . Journal of Empirical Finance , 73:220--237

    2023

  23. [31]

    Sun, Q., Zhou, W.-X., and Fan, J. (2020). Adaptive Huber Regression . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 115:254--265

    2020

  24. [32]

    M., Sun, Q., and Witten, D

    Tan, K. M., Sun, Q., and Witten, D. (2023). Sparse Reduced Rank Huber Regression in High Dimensions . Journal of the American Statistical Association , 118:2383--2393

    2023

  25. [33]

    and Tsay, R

    Wang, D. and Tsay, R. S. (2023). Rate-optimal Robust Estimation of High-dimensional Vector Autoregressive Models . The Annals of Statistics , 51:846--877

    2023

  26. [34]

    Wang, D., Zheng, Y., and Li, G. (2024a). High-dimensional Low-rank Tensor Autoregressive Time Series Modeling . Journal of Econometrics , 238:105544

  27. [35]

    Wang, H., Li, G., and Jiang, G. (2007). Robust Regression Shrinkage and Consistent Variable Selection through the LAD-Lasso . Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 25:347--355

    2007

  28. [36]

    Wang, Y., Li, G., Xiao, Z., Xu, L., and Zhang, W. (2024b). Robust Estimation for High-dimensional Time Series with Heavy Tails . arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05217

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Weyl, H. (1912). Das Asymptotische Verteilungsgesetz Der Eigenwerte Linearer Partieller Differentialgleichungen . Mathematische Annalen , 71:441--479

    1912

  30. [38]

    and Wu, Y

    Wu, W.-B. and Wu, Y. N. (2016). Performance Bounds for Parameter Estimates of High-dimensional Linear Models with Correlated Errors . Electronic Journal of Statistics , 10:352--379

    2016

  31. [39]

    Xia, Q., Xu, W., and Zhu, L. (2015). Consistently Determining the Number of Factors in Multivariate Volatility Modelling . Statistica Sinica , 25:1025--1044

    2015

  32. [40]

    Yao, S., Zou, H., and Xing, H. (2024). L-1 Regularization for High-Dimensional Multivariate GARCH Models . Risks , 12:34

    2024

  33. [41]

    Yu, Y., Wang, T., and Samworth, R. J. (2015). A useful variant of the Davis--Kahan Theorem for Statisticians . Biometrika , 102:315--323

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.