The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Optimal Detection of Changepoints With a Linear Computational Cost
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we consider the problem of detecting multiple changepoints in large datasets. Our focus is on applications where the number of changepoints will increase as we collect more data: for example, in genetics as we analyze larger regions of the genome, or in finance as we observe time series over longer periods. We consider the common approach of detecting changepoints through minimizing a cost function over possible numbers and locations of changepoints. This includes several established procedures for detecting changing points, such as penalized likelihood and minimum description length. We introduce a new method for finding the minimum of such cost functions and hence the optimal number and location of changepoints that has a computational cost, which, under mild conditions, is linear in the number of observations. This compares favorably with existing methods for the same problem whose computational cost can be quadratic or even cubic. In simulation studies, we show that our new method can be orders of magnitude faster than these alternative exact methods. We also compare with the binary segmentation algorithm for identifying changepoints, showing that the exactness of our approach can lead to substantial improvements in the accuracy of the inferred segmentation of the data. This article has supplementary materials available online.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Zhang, N. R., & Siegmund, D. O. (2007) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00662.x · Cited by 407
Cited by
changepoint : An R Package for Changepoint Analysis
Killick, R., & Eckley, I. A. (2014) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v058.i03 · Cited by 1,330
Self-citationCicero predicts cis-regulatory DNA interactions from single-cell chromatin accessibility data
Pliner, H. A., Packer, J. S., McFaline-Figueroa, J. L., Cusanovich, D. A., Daza, R. M., Aghamirzaie, D., Srivatsan, S., Qiu, X., Jackson, D., Minkina, A., et al. (2018) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2018.06.044 · Cited by 789
Wild binary segmentation for multiple change-point detection
Fryzlewicz, P. (2014) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/14-aos1245 · Cited by 566
Characterizing genetic intra-tumor heterogeneity across 2,658 human cancer genomes
Dentro, S. C., Leshchiner, I., Haase, K., Tarabichi, M., Wintersinger, J., Deshwar, A. G., Yu, K., Rubanova, Y., Macintyre, G., Demeulemeester, J., et al. (2021) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.009 · Cited by 533
Classification of electrophysiological and morphological neuron types in the mouse visual cortex
Gouwens, N. W., Sorensen, S. A., Berg, J., Lee, C., Jarsky, T., Ting, J., Sunkin, S. M., Feng, D., Anastassiou, C. A., Barkan, E., et al. (2019) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-019-0417-0 · Cited by 456
Metadata
- Authors
- Killick, R., Fearnhead, P., & Eckley, I. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-10-17
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 500
- Pages
- 1590-1598
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W1975684011
- Cited by
- 2,548
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 46.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimal Detection of Changepoints With a Linear Computational Cost. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745
- The paper
- Killick, R., Fearnhead, P., & Eckley, I. A. (2012). Optimal Detection of Changepoints With a Linear Computational Cost. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.