4.5 Article

Detecting correlation changes in multivariate time series: A comparison of four non-parametric change point detection methods

期刊

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 988-1005

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-016-0754-9

关键词

Change point detection; Correlation changes; Multivariate time series; DeCon; ROBPCA

资金

  1. Fund for Scientific Research-Flanders (FWO) [G.0582.14]
  2. Belgian Federal Science Policy [IAP/P7/06]
  3. Research Council of KU Leuven [GOA/15/003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Change point detection in multivariate time series is a complex task since next to the mean, the correlation structure of the monitored variables may also alter when change occurs. DeCon was recently developed to detect such changes in mean and\ or correlation by combining a moving windows approach and robust PCA. However, in the literature, several other methods have been proposed that employ other non-parametric tools: E-divisive, Multirank, and KCP. Since these methods use different statistical approaches, two issues need to be tackled. First, applied researchers may find it hard to appraise the differences between the methods. Second, a direct comparison of the relative performance of all these methods for capturing change points signaling correlation changes is still lacking. Therefore, we present the basic principles behind DeCon, E-divisive, Multirank, and KCP and the corresponding algorithms, to make them more accessible to readers. We further compared their performance through extensive simulations using the settings of Bulteel et al. (Biological Psychology, 98 (1), 29-42, 2014) implying changes in mean and in correlation structure and those of Matteson and James (Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109 (505), 334-345, 2014) implying different numbers of (noise) variables. KCP emerged as the best method in almost all settings. However, in case of more than two noise variables, only DeCon performed adequately in detecting correlation changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据