2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11222-016-9683-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple Monte Carlo testing, with applications in spatial point processes

Abstract: The rank envelope test (Myllymäki et al., Global

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(The combined test function is simply a concatenation ofK 1 andK 2 . Mrkvička et al (2017) recommended using such a combination rather thanK 1 orK 2 as a test function.) Specifically, we consider a homogeneous LGCP X driven by a random field Λ(y, u) = ρ exp{Z(y, u)}, where ρ > 0 and…”
Section: Simulation Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(The combined test function is simply a concatenation ofK 1 andK 2 . Mrkvička et al (2017) recommended using such a combination rather thanK 1 orK 2 as a test function.) Specifically, we consider a homogeneous LGCP X driven by a random field Λ(y, u) = ρ exp{Z(y, u)}, where ρ > 0 and…”
Section: Simulation Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For one-dimensional test functions, Myllymäki et al (2017) recommend using 2499 simulations to perform a global rank envelope test, and Mrkvička et al (2017) discuss the appropriate number of simulations when using a multivariate test function (as the empirical space-sphere K-function). In Section 6.2, we used 49999 simulations for the global rank envelope test based onK, sinceK had steep jumps.…”
Section: Simulation Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We remark that the sample cross K-function is estimated for a given number of arguments (50 in our study), which results in the same number of simultaneous Monte Carlo tests. The multiple correction was resolved in our study by the global envelope test Mrkvička et al, 2017). Due to this multiple testing correction and the fact that the cross K-function summarizes the information from some neighborhood of the observed points (which was not the case for the sample covariance of two random fields) the variance correction tests are conservative and less powerful than the torus correction approach, as shown in the simulation study below.…”
Section: Point Process Casementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this section, we introduce a tool (test) used for testing equality of distributions of random geometrical objects recently developed by Myllymäki et al (2016) and Mrkvička et al (2015). Also, we describe the customization of the test to fit our needs.…”
Section: Envelope Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus we do not explicitly have only one characteristic T 1 (ϕ) to be compared to T k (ϕ), k = 2, ..., s + 1. Therefore we decided to use a permutation version of the above-mentioned test to attain functional ANOVA procedure (Mrkvička et al, 2015). It works as follows.…”
Section: The Width Of the Interval Between P + And P − Ismentioning
confidence: 99%