ArticleAnnals of statistics2020
CONSISTENT SELECTION OF THE NUMBER OF CHANGE-POINTS VIA SAMPLE-SPLITTING.
Article in Annals of statistics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using gene topologies to partition sex chromosomes into regions with distinct histories.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Trends in Congenital Heart Disease Hospitalizations: What Nearly 50 Years of Longitudinal Data and Segmented Regression Reveal.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Article
- Estimation of common breaks in linear panel data models via screening and ranking algorithm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Generalized data thinning using sufficient statistics.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2025Article
- Bootstrap-based inference for multiple variance changepoint models.Journal of applied statistics · 2025Article
- Quantifying uncertainty in spikes estimated from calcium imaging data.Biostatistics (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In multiple change-point analysis, one of the major challenges is to estimate the number of change-points. Most existing approaches attempt to minimize a Schwarz information criterion which balances a term quantifying model fit with a penalization term accounting for model complexity that increases with the number of change-points and limits overfitting. However, different penalization terms are required to adapt to different contexts of multiple change-point problems and the optimal penalization magnitude usually varies from the model and error distribution. We propose a data-driven selection criterion that is applicable to most kinds of popular change-point detection methods, including binary segmentation and optimal partitioning algorithms. The key idea is to select the number of change-points that minimizes the squared prediction error, which measures the fit of a specified model for a new sample. We develop a cross-validation estimation scheme based on an order-preserved sample-splitting strategy, and establish its asymptotic selection consistency under some mild conditions. Effectiveness of the proposed selection criterion is demonstrated on a variety of numerical experiments and real-data examples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.