Performing Hypothesis Tests on the Shape of Functional Data
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2005
- 2,219Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
We explore different approaches for performing hypothesis tests on the shape of a mean function by developing general methodologies both, for the often assumed, i.i.d. error structure case, as well as for the more general case where the error terms have an arbitrary covariance structure. The procedures work by testing for patterns in the residuals after estimating the mean function and are extremely computationally fast. In the i.i.d. case, we fit a smooth function to the observed residuals and then fit similar functions to the permuted residuals. Under the null hypothesis that the curve comes from a particular functional shape, the permuted residuals should have a similar distribution to the unpermuted ones. So the fitted curves will have the same distribution thus allowing significance levels to be computed very efficiently. In the more general case, when several curves are observed, one can directly estimate the covariance structure and incorporate this into the analysis. However, when only one curve is observed, we adopt a graphical approach where one plots the p-value for differing levels of potential complexity in the covariance structure. This allows one to judge the degree of deviation from the assumed null distribution.We demonstrate the power of these methods on an extensive set of simulations.We also illustrate the approach on a data set of technology evolution curves which current theory suggests should have an underlying S shape. The developed techniques have wide potential applications in empirical testing of the shape of functional data.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know