ArticleArXiv2025
Covariance test for discretely observed functional data: when and how it works?
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
For covariance test in functional data analysis, existing methods are developed only for fully observed curves, whereas in practice, trajectories are typically observed discretely and with noise. To bridge this gap, we employ a pool-smoothing strategy to construct an FPC-based test statistic, allowing the number of estimated eigenfunctions to grow with the sample size. This yields a consistently nonparametric test, while the challenge arises from the concurrence of diverging truncation and discretized observations. Facilitated by advancing perturbation bounds of estimated eigenfunctions, we establish that the asymptotic null distribution remains valid across permissable truncation levels. Moreover, when the sampling frequency (i.e., the number of measurements per subject) reaches certain magnitude of sample size, the test behaves as if the functions were fully observed. This phase transition phenomenon differs from the well-known result of the pooling mean/covariance estimation, reflecting the elevated difficulty in covariance test due to eigen-decomposition. The numerical studies, including simulations and real data examples, yield favorable performance compared to existing methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40969485PMC12443225What 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.