HALFSPACE DEPTHS FOR SCATTER,
CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE MATRICES

arXiv:1704.06160v4 [math.ST] 26 Oct 2017

By Davy Paindaveine∗ and Germain Van Bever†
Université libre de Bruxelles
We propose halfspace depth concepts for scatter, concentration
and shape matrices. For scatter matrices, our concept is similar to
those from Chen, Gao and Ren (2017) and Zhang (2002). Rather
than focusing, as in these earlier works, on deepest scatter matrices, we thoroughly investigate the properties of the proposed depth
and of the corresponding depth regions. We do so under minimal
assumptions and, in particular, we do not restrict to elliptical distributions nor to absolutely continuous distributions. Interestingly, fully
understanding scatter halfspace depth requires considering different
geometries/topologies on the space of scatter matrices. We also discuss, in the spirit of Zuo and Serfling (2000), the structural properties
a scatter depth should satisfy, and investigate whether or not these
are met by scatter halfspace depth. Companion concepts of depth
for concentration matrices and shape matrices are also proposed and
studied. We show the practical relevance of the depth concepts considered in a real-data example from finance.

1. Introduction. Statistical depth measures the centrality of a given
location in Rk with respect to a sample of k-variate observations, or, more
generally, with respect to a probability measure P over Rk . The most famous depths include the halfspace depth (Tukey, 1975), the simplicial depth
(Liu, 1990), the spatial depth (Vardi and Zhang, 2000) and the projection
depth (Zuo, 2003). In the last decade, depth has also known much success in
functional data analysis, where it measures the centrality of a function with
respect to a sample of functional data. Some instances are the band depth
(López-Pintado and Romo, 2009), the functional halfspace depth (Claeskens
∗
Research is supported by the IAP research network grant nr. P7/06 of the Belgian
government (Belgian Science Policy), the Crédit de Recherche J.0113.16 of the FNRS
(Fonds National pour la Recherche Scientifique), Communauté Française de Belgique,

and a grant from the National Bank of Belgium.
†
Research is supported by the FC84444 grant of the FNRS (Fonds National pour la
Recherche Scientifique), Communauté Française de Belgique.
MSC 2010 subject classifications: Primary 62H20; secondary 62G35
Keywords and phrases: curved parameter spaces, elliptical distributions, robustness,
scatter matrices, shape matrices, statistical depth

1

2

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

et al., 2014) and the functional spatial depth (Chakraborty and Chaudhuri,
2014). The large variety of available depths made it necessary to introduce
an axiomatic approach identifying the most desirable properties of a depth
function; see Zuo and Serfling (2000) in the multivariate case and NietoReyes and Battey (2016) in the functional one.
Statistical depth provides a center-outward ordering of the observations
that allows to tackle in a robust and nonparametric way a broad range of
inference problems; see Liu, Parelius and Singh (1999). For most depths,
the deepest point is a robust location functional that extends the univariate
median to the multivariate or functional setups; see, in particular, Cardot,
Cénac and Godichon-Baggioni (2017) for a recent work on the functional
spatial median. Beyond the median, depth plays a key role in the classical
problem of defining multivariate quantiles; see, e.g., Hallin, Paindaveine and
Šiman (2010) or Serfling (2010). In line with this, the collections of locations in Rk whose depth does not exceed a given level are sometimes called
quantile regions; see, e.g., He and Einmahl (2017) in a multivariate extreme
value theory framework. In the functional case, the quantiles in Chaudhuri
(1996) may be seen as those associated with functional spatial depth; see
Chakraborty and Chaudhuri (2014). Both in the multivariate and functional
cases, supervised classification and outlier detection are standard applications of depth; we refer, e.g., to Cuevas, Febrero and Fraiman (2007), Paindaveine and Van Bever (2015), Dang and Serfling (2010), Hubert, Rousseeuw
and Segaert (2015) and to the references therein.
In Mizera (2002), statistical depth was extended to a virtually arbitrary parametric framework. In a generic parametric model indexed by an
`-dimensional parameter ϑ, the resulting tangent depth DPn (ϑ0 ) measures
how appropriate a parameter value ϑ0 is, with respect to the empirical measure Pn of a sample of k-variate observations X1 , . . . , Xn at hand, as one
could alternatively do based on the likelihood LPn (ϑ0 ). Unlike the MLE
of ϑ, the depth-based estimator maximizing DPn (ϑ) is robust under mild
conditions; see Section 4 of Mizera (2002). The construction, that for linear
regression provides the Rousseeuw and Hubert (1999) depth, proved useful in
various contexts. However, tangent depth requires evaluating the halfspace
depth of a given location in R` , hence can only deal with low-dimensional
parameters. In particular, tangent depth cannot cope with covariance or
scatter matrix parameters (` = k(k + 1)/2), unless k is as small as 2 or 3.
The crucial role played by scatter matrices in multivariate statistics,
however, makes it highly desirable to have a satisfactory depth for such
parameters, as phrased by Serfling (2004), that calls for an extension of
the Mizera and Müller (2004) location-scale depth concept into a location-

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

3

scatter one. While computational issues prevent from basing this extension
on tangent depth, a more ad hoc approach such as the one proposed in
Zhang (2002) is suitable. Recently, another concept of scatter depth, that is
very close in spirit to the one from Zhang (2002), was introduced in Chen,
Gao and Ren (2017). Both proposals dominate tangent depth in the sense
that, for k-variate observations, they rely on projection pursuit in Rk rather
than in Rk(k+1)/2 , which allowed Chen, Gao and Ren (2017) to consider
their depth even in high dimensions, under, e.g., sparsity assumptions. Both
works, however, mainly focus on asymptotic, robustness and/or minimax
convergence properties of the sample deepest scatter matrix. The properties
of these scatter depths thus remain largely unknown, which severely affects
the interpretation of the sample concepts.
In the present work, we consider a concept of halfspace depth for scatter
matrices that is close to the Zhang (2002) and Chen, Gao and Ren (2017)
ones. Unlike these previous works, however, we thoroughly study the properties of the scatter depth and of the corresponding depth regions. We do so
under minimal assumptions and, in particular, we do not restrict to elliptical
distributions nor to absolutely continuous distributions. Interestingly, fully
understanding scatter halfspace depth requires considering different geometries/topologies on the space of scatter matrices. Like Donoho and Gasko
(1992) and Rousseeuw and Ruts (1999) did for location halfspace depth, we
study continuity and quasi-concavity properties of scatter halfspace depth,
as well as the boundedness, convexity and compacity properties of the corresponding depth regions. Existence of a deepest halfspace scatter matrix,
which is not guaranteed a priori, is also investigated. We further discuss,
in the spirit of Zuo and Serfling (2000), the structural properties a scatter
depth should satisfy and we investigate whether or not these are met by
scatter halfspace depth. Moreover, companion concepts of depth for concentration matrices and shape matrices are proposed and studied. To the best
of our knowledge, our results are the first providing structural and topological properties of depth regions outside the classical location framework.
Throughout, numerical results illustrate our theoretical findings. Finally, we
show the practical relevance of the depth concepts considered in a real-data
example from finance.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we define scatter halfspace depth and investigate its affine invariance and uniform consistency. We
also obtain explicit expressions of this depth for two distributions we will
use as running examples in the paper. In Section 3, we derive the properties
of scatter halfspace depth and scatter halfspace depth regions when considering the Frobenius topology on the space of scatter matrices, whereas we

4

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

do the same for the geodesic topology in Section 4. In Section 5, we identify
the desirable properties a generic scatter depth should satisfy and investigate
whether or not these are met by scatter halfspace depth. In Sections 6 and 7,
we extend this depth to concentration and shape matrices, respectively. In
Section 8, we treat a real-data example from finance. Final comments and
perspectives for future work are provided in Section 9. Proofs and further
numerical results are provided in the appendix.
Before proceeding, we list here, for the sake of convenience, some notation
to be used throughout. The collection of k × k matrices, k × k invertible matrices, and k × k symmetric matrices will be denoted as Mk , GLk , and Sk ,
respectively (all matrices in this paper are real matrices). The identity matrix in Mk will be denoted as Ik . For any A ∈ Mk , diag(A) will stand for
the k-vector collecting the diagonal entries of A, whereas, for any k-vector v,
diag(v) will stand for the diagonal matrix such that diag(diag(v)) = v.
For p ≥ 2 square matrices A1 , . . . , Ap , diag(A1 , . . . , Ap ) will stand for the
block-diagonal matrix with diagonal blocks A1 , . . . , Ap . Any matrix A in Sk
can be diagonalized into A = O diag(λ1 (A), . . . , λk (A)) O0 , where λ1 (A) ≥
. . . ≥ λk (A) are the eigenvalues of A and where the columns of the k × k
orthogonal matrix O = (v1 (A), . . . , vk (A)) are corresponding unit eigenvectors (as usual, eigenvectors, and possibly eigenvalues, are only partly
identified, but this will not play a role in the sequel). The spectral interval of A is Sp(A) := [λk (A), λ1 (A)]. For any mapping f : R → R, we
let f (A) = O diag(f (λ1 (A)), . . . , f (λk (A))) O0 . If Σ is a scatter matrix, in
the sense that Σ belongs to the collection Pk of symmetric and positive
definite k × k matrices, then this defines log(Σ) and Σt for any t ∈ R. In
particular, Σ1/2 is the unique A ∈ Pk such that Σ = AA0 , and Σ−1/2 is the inverse of this symmetric and positive definite square root. Throughout, T will
denote a location functional, that is, a function mapping a probability measure P to a real k-vector TP . A location functional T is affine-equivariant
if TPA,b = ATP + b for any A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk , where the probability
measure PA,b is the distribution of AX + b when X has distribution P . A
much weaker equivariance concept is centro-equivariance, for which TPA,b =
ATP +b is imposed for A = −Ik and b = 0 only. For a probability measure P
over Rk and a location functional T , we will let αP,T := min(sP,T , 1 − sP,T ),
where sP,T := supu∈S k−1 P [{x ∈ Rk : u0 (x − TP ) = 0}] involves the unit
sphere S k−1 := {x ∈ Rk : kxk2 = x0 x = 1} of Rk . We will say that P is
smooth at θ(∈ Rk ) if the P -probability of any hyperplane of Rk containing θ
D
is zero and that it is smooth if it is smooth at any θ. Finally, = will denote
equality in distribution.

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

5

2. Scatter halfspace depth. We start by recalling the classical concept of location halfspace depth. To do so, let P be a probability measure
over Rk and X be a random k-vector with distribution P , which allows us
throughout to write P [X ∈ B] instead of P [B] for any k-Borel set B. The
location halfspace depth of θ(∈ Rk ) with respect to P is then
HDPloc (θ) :=

inf

u∈S k−1

P [u0 (X − θ) ≥ 0].

The corresponding depth regions RPloc (α) := {θ ∈ Rk : HDPloc (θ) ≥ α} form
a nested family of closed convex subsets of Rk . The innermost depth region,
namely MPloc := {θ ∈ Rk : HDPloc (θ) = maxη∈Rk HDPloc (η)} (the maximum
always exists; see, e.g., Proposition 7 in Rousseeuw and Ruts, 1999), is a setvalued location functional. When a unique representative of MPloc is needed,
it is customary to consider the Tukey median θP of P , that is defined as the
barycenter of MPloc . The Tukey median has maximal depth (which follows
from the convexity of MPloc ) and is an affine-equivariant location functional.
In this paper, for a location functional T , we define the T -scatter halfspace
depth of Σ(∈ Pk ) with respect to P as
√


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) := inf min P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σu ,
u∈S k−1

(2.1)

√


P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σu .

This extends to a probability measure with arbitrary location the centered
matrix depth concept from Chen, Gao and Ren (2017). If P is smooth,
then the depth in (2.1) is also equivalent to the (Tukey version of) the
dispersion depth introduced in Zhang (2002), but for the fact that the latter,
in the spirit of projection depth, involves centering through a univariate
location functional (both Zhang (2002) and Chen, Gao and Ren (2017) also
propose bypassing centering through a pairwise difference approach that
will be discussed in Section 9). While they were not considered in these
prior works, it is of interest to introduce the corresponding depth regions

sc
sc
(2.2)
RP,T
(α) := Σ ∈ Pk : HDP,T
(Σ) ≥ α , α ≥ 0.
sc (α) as the order-α (T -scatter halfspace) depth region
We will refer to RP,T
sc (0) = P . Clearly, the concepts in
of P . Obviously, one always has RP,T
k
(2.1)-(2.2) give practitioners the flexibility to freely choose the location functional T ; numerical results below, however, will focus on the depth HDPsc (Σ)
and on the depth regions RPsc (α) based on the Tukey median θP , that is the
natural location functional whenever halfspace depth objects are considered.

6

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

To get a grasp of the scatter depth HDPsc (Σ), it is helpful to start with
the univariate case k = 1. There, the location halfspace deepest region is
the “median interval” MPloc = arg maxθ∈R min(P [X ≤ θ], P [X ≥ θ]) and the
Tukey median θP , that is, the midpoint of MPloc , is the usual representative
of the univariate median. The scatter halfspace deepest region is then the
median interval MPsc := arg maxΣ∈R+ min(P [(X − θP )2 ≤ Σ ], P [(X − θP )2 ≥
0
Σ ]) of (X − θP )2 ; call it the median squared deviation interval IMSD [X]
(or IMSD [P ]) of X ∼ P . Below, parallel to what is done for the median,
MSD[X] (or MSD[P ]) will denote the midpoint of this MSD interval. In
particular, if IMSD [P ] is a singleton, then scatter halfspace depth is uniquely
maximized at Σ = MSD[P ] = (MAD[P ])2 , where MAD[P ] denotes the
median absolute deviation of P . Obviously, the depth regions RPsc (α) form
+
+
a family of nested intervals, [Σ−
α , Σα ] say, included in P1 = R0 . It is easy
to check that, if P is symmetric about zero with an invertible cumulative
distribution function F and if T is centro-equivariant, then
√ 
√
sc
(2.3) HDPsc (Σ) = HDP,T
and
(Σ) = 2 min F ( Σ) − 12 , 1 − F ( Σ)


sc
RPsc (α) = RP,T
(α) = (F −1 ( 12 + α2 ))2 , (F −1 (1 − α2 ))2 .
(2.4)
This is compatible with the fact that the maximal value of Σ 7→ HDPsc (Σ)
(that is equal to 1/2) is achieved at Σ = (MAD[P ])2 only.
For k > 1, elliptical distributions provide an important particular case.
We will say that P = P X is k-variate elliptical with location θ(∈ Rk ) and
D
scatter Σ(∈ Pk ) if and only if X = θ + Σ1/2 Z, where Z = (Z1 , . . . , Zk )0
D
is (i) spherically symmetric about the origin of Rk (that is, OZ = Z for
any k × k orthogonal matrix O) and is (ii) standardized in such a way
that MSD[Z1 ] = 1 (one then has TP = θ for any affine-equivariant location
functional T ). Denoting by Φ the cumulative distribution function of the
standard normal, the k-variate normal distribution with location zero and
scatter Ik is then the distribution of X := W/b, where b := Φ−1 ( 43 ) and W
is a standard normal random k-vector. In this Gaussian case, we obtain
√
√
 


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) = inf min P |u0 X| ≤ u0 Σu , P |u0 X| ≥ u0 Σu
u∈S k−1

(2.5)




1/2
1/2
= 2 min Φ bλk (Σ) − 12 , 1 − Φ bλ1 (Σ) .

sc (Σ) ≤ HD sc (I ) = 1/2, with equalOne can check directly that HDP,T
P,T k
ity if and only if Σ coincides with the “true” scatter matrix Ik (we refer
to Theorem 5.1 for a more general result). Also, Σ belongs to the depth
sc (α) if and only if Sp(Σ) ⊂ [( 1 Φ−1 ( 1 + α ))2 , ( 1 Φ−1 (1 − α ))2 ].
region RP,T
b
2
2
b
2

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

7

Provided that the location functional used is affine-equivariant, extension
to an arbitrary multinormal is based on the following affine-invariance result,
which ensures in particular that scatter halfspace depth will not be affected
by possible changes in the marginal measurement units (a similar result is
stated in Zhang (2002) for the dispersion depth concept considered there).
Theorem 2.1. Let T be an affine-equivariant location functional. Then,
(i) scatter halfspace depth is affine-invariant in the sense that, for any
probability measure P over Rk , Σ ∈ Pk , A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk , we have
sc (Σ), where P
HDPscA,b ,T (AΣA0 ) = HDP,T
A,b is as defined on page 4. Consesc
quently, (ii) the regions RP,T (α) are affine-equivariant, in the sense that,
for any probability measure P over Rk , α ≥ 0, A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk , we
sc (α)A0 .
have RPscA,b ,T (α) = ARP,T
This result readily entails that if P is the k-variate normal with location θ0
and scatter Σ0 , then, provided that T is affine-equivariant,


 1
1/2
1/2
−1
sc
Σ)
,
1
−
Φ
bλ
(Σ
Σ)
−
(2.6)
HDP,T
(Σ) = 2 min Φ bλk (Σ−1
0
1
0
2
sc (α) is the collection of scatter matrices Σ for which Sp(Σ−1 Σ) ⊂
and RP,T
0
[( 1b Φ−1 ( 12 + α2 ))2 , ( 1b Φ−1 (1 − α2 ))2 ]. For a non-Gaussian elliptical probability
sc (Σ)
measure P with location θ0 and scatter Σ0 , it is easy to show that HDP,T
−1
−1
will still depend on Σ only through λ1 (Σ0 Σ) and λk (Σ0 Σ).
As already mentioned, we also intend to consider non-elliptical probability
measures. A running non-elliptical example will be the one for which P is
the distribution of a random vector X = (X1 , . . . , Xk )0 with independent
Cauchy marginals. If T is centro-equivariant, then
(2.7)

√
p


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) = 2 min Ψ 1/ max s0 Σ−1 s − 21 , 1 − Ψ max(diag(Σ)) ,
s

where Ψ is the Cauchy cumulative distribution function and where the maximum in s is over all sign vectors s = (s1 , . . . , sk ) ∈ {−1, 1}k ; we establish
the explicit expression (2.7)
B.1.
√ in
√ For k = 1, this simplifies
 Appendix
1
sc
to HDP,T (Σ) = 2 min Ψ Σ − 2 , 1 − Ψ Σ , which agrees with (2.3).
For k = 2, we obtain
 p
p


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) = 2 min Ψ det(Σ)/sΣ − 21 , 1 − Ψ max(Σ11 , Σ22 ) ,
where we let sΣ := Σ11 + Σ22 + 2|Σ12 |. For a general k, a scatter masc (α) if and only if 1/(s0 Σ−1 s) ≥ (Ψ−1 ( 1 + α ))2 for all
trix Σ belongs to RP,T
2
2

8

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

s ∈ {−1, 1}k and Σ`` ≤ (Ψ−1 1 − α2 ))2 for all ` = 1, . . . , k. The problem of
identifying the scatter matrix achieving maximal depth, if any (existence is
not guaranteed), will be considered in Section 4. Figure 1 plots scatter halfspace depth regions in the Gaussian and independent Cauchy cases above.
Examples involving distributions that are not absolutely continuous with
respect to the Lebesgue measure will be considered in the next sections.

Fig 1. Level sets of order α = .2, .3 and .4, for any centro-symmetric T , of (x, y, z) 7→
sc
sc
(Σx,y,z ) is the T -scatter halfspace depth of Σx,y,z = xz zy
(Σx,y,z ), where HDP,T
HDP,T
with respect to two probability measures P , namely the bivariate multinormal distribution
with location zero and scatter I2 (left) and the bivariate distribution with independent
√
Cauchy marginals (right). The red points are those associated with I2 (left) and 2I2
(right), which are the corresponding deepest scatter matrices (see Sections 4 and 5).

In Appendix A.1, we validate through a Monte Carlo exercise the exsc (Σ) obtained in (2.6)-(2.7) above. Such a numerical valpressions for HDP,T
idation is justified by the following uniform consistency result; see (6.2)
and (6.6) in Donoho and Gasko (1992) for the corresponding location halfspace depth result, and Proposition 2.2(ii) in Zhang (2002) for the dispersion
depth concept considered there.
Theorem 2.2. Let P be a smooth probability measure over Rk and T
be a location functional. Let Pn denote the empirical probability measure
associated with a random sample of size n from P and assume that TPn → TP
sc (Σ)| → 0 almost
almost surely as n → ∞. Then supΣ∈Pk |HDPscn ,T (Σ)−HDP,T
surely as n → ∞.

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

9

This result applies in particular to the scatter halfspace depth HDPsc (Σ),
as the Tukey median is strongly consistent without any assumption on P
(for completeness, we show this in Lemma B.5). Inspection of the proof
of Theorem 2.2 reveals that the smoothness assumption is only needed to
control the estimation of TP , hence is superfluous when a constant location
functional is used. This is relevant when the location is fixed, as in Chen,
Gao and Ren (2017).
3. Frobenius topology. Our investigation of the further structural
sc (Σ) and of the corresponding
properties of the scatter halfspace depth HDP,T
sc
depth regions RP,T (α) depends on the topology that is considered on Pk .
In this section, we focus on the topology induced by the Frobenius metric space (Pk , dF ), where dF (Σa , Σb ) = kΣb − Σa kF pis the distance on Pk
that is inherited from the Frobenius norm kAkF = tr[AA0 ] on Mk . The
resulting Frobenius topology (or simply F -topology), generated by the F balls BF (Σ0 , r) := {Σ ∈ Pk : dF (Σ, Σ0 ) < r} with center Σ0 and radius r,
gives a precise meaning to what we call below F -continuous functions on Pk ,
F -open/F -closed subsets of Pk , etc. We then have the following result.
Theorem 3.1. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a locasc (Σ) is upper F -semicontinuous on P ,
tion functional. Then, (i) Σ 7→ HDP,T
k
sc
so that (ii) the depth region RP,T (α) is F -closed for any α ≥ 0. (iii) If P is
sc (Σ) is F -continuous on P .
smooth at TP , then Σ 7→ HDP,T
k
For location halfspace depth, the corresponding result was derived in
Lemma 6.1 of Donoho and Gasko (1992), where the metric on Rk is the
Euclidean one. The similarity between the location and scatter halfspace
depths also extends to the boundedness of depth regions, in the sense that,
like location halfspace depth (Proposition 5 in Rousseeuw and Ruts, 1999),
the order-α scatter halfspace depth region is bounded if and only if α > 0.
Theorem 3.2. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losc (α) is F -bounded (that is, it is
cation functional. Then, for any α > 0, RP,T
included, for some r > 0, in the F -ball BF (Ik , r)).
sc (Σ) goes to zero
This shows that, for any probability measure P , HDP,T
as kΣkF → ∞. Since kΣkF ≥ λ1 (Σ), this means that explosion of Σ (that
is, λ1 (Σ) → ∞) leads to arbitrarily small depth, which is confirmed in
the multinormal case in (2.5). In this Gaussian case, however, implosion
of Σ (that is, λk (Σ) → 0) also provides arbitrarily small depth, but this
is not captured by the general result in Theorem 3.2 (similar comments

10

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

can be given for the independent Cauchy example in (2.7)). Irrespective of
the topology adopted (so that the F -topology is not to be blamed for this
behavior), it is actually possible to have implosion without depth going to
zero. We show this by considering the following example. Let P = (1 −
s)P1 + sP2 , where s ∈ ( 12 , 1), P1 is the bivariate standard normal and P2 is
the distribution of Z0 , where Z is univariate standard normal. Then, it can

0
be showed that, for Σn := 1/n
0 1 and any centro-equivariant T , we have
sc (Σ ) → 1 − s > 0 as n → ∞.
HDP,T
n
In the metric space (Pk , dF ), any bounded set is also totally bounded, that
is, can be covered, for any ε > 0, by finitely many balls of the form BF (Σ, ε).
sc (α) is both F -closed
Theorems 3.1-3.2 thus show that, for any α > 0, RP,T
and totally F -bounded. However, since (Pk , dF ) is not complete, there is
no guarantee that these regions are F -compact. Actually, these regions may
fail to be F -compact, as we show through the example from the previous
sc (α)
paragraph. For any α ∈ (0, 1 − s), the scatter matrix Σn belongs to RP,T

0 0
for n large enough. However, the sequence (Σn ) F -converges to 0 1 , that
sc (α) (since it does not even belong to P ). Since this
does not belong to RP,T
2
will also hold for any subsequence of (Σn ), we conclude that, for α ∈ (0, 1−s),
sc (α) is not F -compact in this example. This provides a first discrepancy
RP,T
between location and scatter halfspace depths, since location halfspace depth
regions associated with a positive order α are always compact.
The lack of compacity of scatter halfspace depth regions may allow for
probability measures for which no halfspace deepest scatter exists. This
is actually the case in the bivariate mixture example above. There, letting e1 = (1, 0)0 and assuming again that p
T is centro-equivariant,
√ any Σ ∈ P2
sc (Σ) ≤ P [|e0 X| ≥
0 Σe ] = P [|X | ≥
indeed satisfies HDP,T
e
Σ11 ] = (1 −
1
1
1
1
√
sc
s)P [|Z| ≥ Σ11 ] < 1 − s = supΣ∈P2 HDP,T (Σ), where the last equality folsc (Σ ) →
lows from the fact that we identified a sequence (Σn ) such that HDP,T
n
1 − s. This is again in sharp contrast with the location case, for which a
halfspace deepest location always exists; see, e.g., Propositions 5 and 7 in
Rousseeuw and Ruts (1999). Identifying sufficient conditions under which
a halfspace deepest scatter exists requires considering another topology,
namely the geodesic topology considered in Section 4 below.
The next result states that scatter halfspace depth is a quasi-concave
function, which ensures convexity of the corresponding depth regions; we
refer to Proposition 1 (and to its corollary) in Rousseeuw and Ruts (1999)
for the corresponding results on location halfspace depth.
Theorem 3.3. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a locasc (Σ) is quasi-concave, in the sense that,
tion functional. Then, (i) Σ 7→ HDP,T

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

11

sc (Σ ) ≥ min(HD sc (Σ ), HD sc (Σ )),
for any Σa , Σb ∈ Pk and t ∈ [0, 1], HDP,T
t
a
b
P,T
P,T
sc (α) is convex.
where we let Σt := (1 − t)Σa + tΣb ; (ii) for any α ≥ 0, RP,T

Strictly speaking, Theorem 3.3 is not directly related to the F -topology
considered on Pk . Yet we state the result in this section due to the link
between the linear paths t 7→ Σt = (1 − t)Σa + tΣb it involves and the
“flat” nature of the F -topology (this link will become clearer below when
we will compare with what occurs for the geodesic topology). Illustration of
Theorem 3.3 will be provided in Figure 2 below, as well as in Appendix A.2.
4. Geodesic topology. Equipped with the inner product < A, B > =
tr[A0 B], Mk is a Hilbert space. The resulting norm and distance are the
Frobenius ones considered in the previous section. As an open set in Sk ,
the parameter space Pk of interest is a differentiable manifold of dimension k(k + 1)/2. The corresponding tangent space at Σ, which is isomorphic
(via translation) to Sk , can be equipped with the inner product < A, B > =
tr[Σ−1 AΣ−1 B]. This leads to considering Pk as a Riemannian manifold, with
the metric at Σ given by the differential ds = kΣ−1/2 dΣ Σ−1/2 kF ; see, e.g.,
Bhatia (2007). The length of a path γ : [0, 1] → Pk is then given by
Z
L(γ) =
0

1

γ −1/2 (t)

dγ(t) −1/2
γ
(t)
dt

F

dt.

The resulting geodesic distance between Σa , Σb ∈ Pk is defined as

(4.1) dg (Σa , Σb ) := inf L(γ) : γ ∈ G(Σa , Σb ) = k log(Σ−1/2
Σb Σa−1/2 )kF ,
a
where G(Σa , Σb ) denotes the collection of paths γ from γ(0) = Σa to γ(1) =
Σb (the second equality in (4.1) is Theorem 6.1.6 in Bhatia, 2007). It directly
follows from the definition of dg (Σa , Σb ) that the geodesic distance satisfies
the triangle inequality. Theorem 6.1.6 in Bhatia (2007) also states that all
paths γ achieving the infimum in (4.1) provide the same geodesic {γ(t) : t ∈
[0, 1]} joining Σa and Σb , and that this geodesic can be parametrized as
(4.2)

t 1/2
γ(t) = Σ̃t := Σ1/2
Σa−1/2 Σb Σ−1/2
Σa ,
a
a

t ∈ [0, 1].

By using the explicit formula in (4.1), it is easy to check that this particular parametrization of this unique geodesic is natural in the sense that
dg (Σa , Σ̃t ) = tdg (Σa , Σb ) for any t ∈ [0, 1].
Below, we consider the natural topology associated with the metric space
(Pk , dg ), that is, the topology whose open sets are generated by geodesic balls
of the form Bg (Σ0 , r) := {Σ ∈ Pk : dg (Σ, Σ0 ) < r}. This topology — call

12

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

it the geodesic topology, or simply g-topology — defines subsets of Pk that
are g-open, g-closed, g-compact, and functions that are g-semicontinuous,
g-continuous, etc. We will say that a subset R of Pk is g-bounded if and
only if R ⊂ Bg (Ik , r) for some r > 0 (we can safely restrict to balls centered
at Ik since the triangle inequality guarantees that R is included in a finiteradius g-ball centered at Ik if and only if it is included in a finite-radius
g-ball centered at an arbitrary Σ0 ∈ Pk ). A g-bounded subset of Pk is also
totally g-bounded, still in the sense that, for any ε > 0, it can be covered by
finitely many balls of the form Bg (Σ, ε); for completeness, we prove this in
Lemma B.6. Since (Pk , dg ) is complete (see, e.g., Proposition 10 in Bhatia
and Holbrook, 2006), a g-bounded and g-closed subset of Pk is then gcompact.
We omit the proof of the next result as it follows along the exact same lines
as the proof of Theorem 3.1, once it is seen that a sequence (Σn ) converging
to Σ0 in (Pk , dg ) also converges to Σ0 in (Pk , dF ).
Theorem 4.1. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a locasc (Σ) is upper g-semicontinuous on P ,
tion functional. Then, (i) Σ 7→ HDP,T
k
sc
so that (ii) the depth region RP,T (α) is g-closed for any α ≥ 0. (iii) If P is
sc (Σ) is g-continuous on P .
smooth at TP , then Σ 7→ HDP,T
k
The following result uses the notation sP,T := supu∈S k−1 P [u0 (X − TP ) =
0] and αP,T := min(sP,T , 1 − sP,T ) defined in the introduction.
Theorem 4.2. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losc (α) is g-bounded, hence
cation functional. Then, for any α > αP,T , RP,T
sc (α)
g-compact (if sP,T ≥ 1/2, then this result is trivial in the sense that RP,T
sc (α)
is empty for any α > αP,T ). In particular, if P is smooth at TP , then RP,T
is g-compact for any α > 0.
This result complements Theorem 3.2 by showing that implosion always
leads to a depth that is smaller than or equal to αP,T . In particular, in
the multinormal and independent Cauchy examples in Section 2, this shows
that both explosion and implosion lead to arbitrarily small depth, whereas
Theorem 3.2 was predicting this collapsing for explosion only. Therefore,
sc (Σ) under implosion/explosion of Σ is indepenwhile the behavior of HDP,T
dent of the topology adopted, the use of the g-topology provides a better
understanding of this behavior than the F -topology.
It is not possible to improve the result in Theorem 4.2, in the sense that
sc
RP,T (αP,T ) may fail to be g-bounded. For instance, consider the probability measure P over R2 putting probability mass 1/6 on each of the six

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

13

points (0, ±1/2) and (±2, ±2), and let T be a centro-equivariant
 location
0
functional. Clearly, αP,T = sP,T = 1/3. Now, letting Σn := 1/n
0 1 , we have
−1/2
−1/2
0
0
P [|u Σn X| ≤ 1] ≥ 1/3 and P [|u Σn X| ≥ 1] ≥ 1/3 for any u ∈ S 1
(here, X is a random vector with distribution P ), which entails that
p
p

 

sc
HDP,T
(Σn ) = inf min P |u0 X| ≤ u0 Σn u , P |u0 X| ≥ u0 Σn u
u∈S 1

 1
= inf min P [|u0 Σn−1/2 X| ≤ 1], P [|u0 Σ−1/2
X| ≤ 1] ≥ = αP,T ,
n
3
u∈S 1
sc (α
sc
so that Σn ∈ RP,T
P,T ) for any n. Since dg (Σn , I2 ) → ∞, RP,T (αP,T ) is
indeed g-unbounded.
An important benefit of working with the g-topology is that, unlike the
F -topology, it allows to show that, under mild assumptions, a halfspace
deepest scatter does exist. More precisely, we have the following result.

Theorem 4.3. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losc (α
cation functional. Assume that RP,T
P,T ) is non-empty. Then, α∗P,T :=
sc
sc
supΣ∈Pk HDP,T (Σ) = HDP,T (Σ∗ ) for some Σ∗ ∈ Pk .
In particular, this result shows that for any probability measure P that
is smooth at TP , there exists a halfspace deepest scatter Σ∗ . For the kvariate multinormal distribution with location zero and scatter Ik (and any
sc (Σ)
centro-equivariant T ), we already stated in Section 2 that Σ 7→ HDP,T
is uniquely maximized at Σ∗ = Ik , with a corresponding maximal depth
equal to 1/2. The next result identifies the halfspace deepest scatter (and
the corresponding maximal depth) in the independent Cauchy case.
Theorem 4.4. Let P be the k-variate probability measure with independent Cauchy marginals and let T be a centro-equivariant
√location functional.
sc (Σ) is uniquely maximized at Σ =
Then, Σ 7→ HDP,T
kIk , and the corre∗

2
sc
−1/4
sponding maximal depth is HDP,T (Σ∗ ) = π arctan k
.
For k = 1, the Cauchy distribution in this result is symmetric (hence, elliptical) about zero, which is compatible with the maximal depth being equal
to 1/2 there (Theorem 5.1 below shows that the maximal depth for absolutely continuous elliptical distributions is always equal to 1/2). For larger
values of k, however, this provides an example where the maximal depth
is strictly smaller than 1/2. Interestingly, this maximal depth goes (monotonically) to zero as k → ∞. Note that, for the same distribution, location
halfspace depth has, irrespective of k, maximal value 1/2 (this follows, e.g.,
from Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Rousseeuw and Struyf, 2004).

14

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

In general, the halfspace deepest scatter Σ∗ is not unique. This is typically
the case for empirical probability measures Pn (note that the existence of
a halfspace deepest scatter in the empirical case readily follows from the
fact that HDPscn ,T (Σ) takes its values in {`/n : ` = 0, 1, . . . , n}). For several
purposes, it is needed to identify a unique representative of the halfspace
deepest scatters, that would play a similar role for scatter as the one played
by the Tukey median for location. To this end, one may consider here a
center of mass, that is, a scatter matrix of the form
Z
d2g (m, Σ) dm,
(4.3)
ΣP,T := arg min
Σ∈Pk

sc (α
RP,T
∗P,T )

sc (α
where dm is a mass distribution on RP,T
∗P,T ) with total mass one (the
sc
natural choice being the uniform over RP,T (α∗P,T )). This is a suitable sosc (α
lution if RP,T
∗P,T ) is g-bounded (hence, g-compact), since Cartan (1929)
showed that, in a simply connected manifold with non-positive curvature
(as Pk ), every compact set has a unique center of mass; see also Proposisc (α
tion 60 in Berger (2003). Convexity of RP,T
∗P,T ) then ensures that ΣP,T
has maximal depth. Like for location, this choice of ΣP,T as a representative of the deepest scatters guarantees affine equivariance (in the sense
that ΣPA,b ,T = AΣP,T A0 for any A ∈ GLk and any b ∈ Rk ), provided
that T itself is affine-equivariant. An alternative approach is to consider
the scatter matrix ΣP,T whose vectorized form vec ΣP,T is the barycenter
sc (α
of vec RP,T
∗P,T ). While this is a more practical solution for scatter matrices, the non-flat nature of some of the parameter spaces in Section 7 will
require the more involved, manifold-type, approach in (4.3).
sc (α
As a final comment related to Theorem 4.3, note that if RP,T
P,T ) is
empty, then it may actually be so that no halfspace deepest scatter does
exist. An example is provided by the bivariate mixture distribution P in
Section 3. There, we saw that, for any centro-equivariant T , no halfspace
deepest scatter does exist, which is compatible with the fact that, for any Σ,
sc (Σ) < 1 − s = α
sc
HDP,T
P,T , so that RP,T (αP,T ) is empty.

5. An axiomatic approach for scatter depth. Building on the properties derived in Liu (1990) for simplicial depth, Zuo and Serfling (2000)
introduced an axiomatic approach suggesting that a generic location depth
DPloc ( · ) : Rk → [0, 1] should satisfy the following properties: (P1) affine
invariance, (P2) maximality at the symmetry center (if any), (P3) monotonicity relative to any deepest point, and (P4) vanishing at infinity. Without entering into details, these properties are to be understood as follows:
(P1) means that DPloc
(Aθ + b) = DPloc (θ) for any A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk ,
A,b

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

15

where PA,b is as defined on page 4; (P2) states that if P is symmetric (in
some sense), then the symmetry center should maximize DPloc ( · ); according to (P3), DPloc ( · ) should be monotone non-increasing along any halfline
originating from any P -deepest point; finally, (P4) states that as θ exits
any compact set in Rk , its depth should converge to zero. There is now an
almost universal agreement in the literature that (P1)-(P4) are the natural
desirable properties for location depths.
In view of this, one may wonder what are the desirable properties for
a scatter depth. Inspired by (P1)-(P4), we argue that a generic scatter
depth DPsc ( · ) : Pk → [0, 1] should satisfy the following properties, all involving an (unless otherwise specified) arbitrary probability measure P over Rk :
(Q1) Affine invariance: for any A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk , DPscA,b (AΣA0 ) =
DPsc (Σ), where PA,b is still as defined on page 4;
(Q2) Fisher consistency under ellipticity: if P is elliptically symmetric with
location θ0 and scatter Σ0 , then DPsc (Σ0 ) ≥ DPsc (Σ) for any Σ ∈ Pk ;
(Q3) Monotonicity relative to any deepest scatter : if Σa maximizes DPsc ( · ),
then, for any Σb ∈ Pk , t 7→ DPsc ((1 − t)Σa + tΣb ) is monotone nonincreasing over [0, 1];
(Q4) Vanishing at the boundary of the parameter space: if (Σn ) F -converges
to the boundary of Pk (in the sense that either dF (Σn , Σ) → 0 for
some Σ ∈ Sk \ Pk or dF (Σn , Ik ) → ∞), then DPsc (Σn ) → 0.
While (Q1) and (Q3) are the natural scatter counterparts of (P1) and (P3),
respectively, some comments are in order for (Q2) and (Q4). We start
with (Q2). In essence, (P2) requires that, whenever an indisputable location
center exists (as it is the case for symmetric distributions), this location
should be flagged as most central by the location depth at hand. A similar
reasoning leads to (Q2): we argue that, for an elliptical probability measure,
the “true” value of the scatter parameter is indisputable, and (Q2) then imposes that the scatter depth at hand should identify this true scatter value
as the (or at least, as a) deepest one. One might actually strengthen (Q2)
by replacing the elliptical model there by a broader model in which the true
scatter would still be clearly defined. In such a case, of course, the larger
the model for which scatter depth satisfies (Q2), the better (a possibility,
that we do not explore here, is to consider the union of the elliptical model
and the independent component model ; see Ilmonen and Paindaveine, 2011
and the references therein). This is parallel to what happens in (P2): the
weaker the symmetry assumption under which (P2) is satisfied, the better
(for instance, having (P2) satisfied with angular symmetry is better than
having it satisfied with central symmetry only); see Zuo and Serfling (2000).

16

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

We then turn to (Q4), whose location counterpart (P4) is typically read
by saying that the depth/centrality DPloc (θn ) goes to zero when the point θn
goes to the boundary of the sample space. In the spirit of parametric depth
(Mizera, 2002; Mizera and Müller, 2004), however, it is more appropriate
to look at θn as a candidate location fit and to consider that (P4) imposes
that the appropriateness DPloc (θn ) of this fit goes to zero as θn goes to the
boundary of the parameter space. For location, the confounding between the
sample space and parameter space (both are Rk ) allows for both interpretations. For scatter, however, there is no such confounding (the sample space
is Rk and the parameter space is Pk ), and we argue (Q4) above is the natural
scatter version of (P4): whenever Σn goes to the boundary of the parameter
space Pk , scatter depth should flag it as an arbitrarily poor candidate fit.
Theorem 2.1 states that scatter halfspace depth satisfies (Q1) as soon as
it is based on an affine-equivariant T . Scatter halfspace depth satisfies (Q3)
sc ( · ), then Theorem 3.3 indeed readily implies
as well: if Σa maximizes HDP,T
sc ((1 − t)Σ + tΣ ) ≥ min(HD sc (Σ ), HD sc (Σ )) = HD sc (Σ )
that HDP,T
a
a
b
b
b
P,T
P,T
P,T
for any Σb ∈ Pk and t ∈ [0, 1]. The next Fisher consistency result shows
that, provided that T is affine-equivariant, (Q2) is also met.
Theorem 5.1. Let P be an elliptical probability measure over Rk with
location θ0 and scatter Σ0 , and let T be an affine-equivariant location funcsc (Σ ) ≥ HD sc (Σ) for any Σ ∈ P , and the equality
tional. Then, (i) HDP,T
0
k
P,T
D
holds if and only if Sp(Σ−1
Σ)
⊂
I
[Z
],
where
Z
=
(Z1 , . . . , Zk )0 =
MSD 1
0
−1/2
Σ0 (X − θ0 ); (ii) in particular, if IMSD [Z1 ] is a singleton (equivalently,
sc (Σ) is uniquely maximized at Σ .
if IMSD [Z1 ] = {1}), then Σ 7→ HDP,T
0
While (Q1)-(Q3) are satisfied by scatter halfspace depth without any
assumption on P , (Q4) is not, as the mixture example considered in Section 3
shows (since the sequence (Σn ) considered there has limiting depth 1−s > 0).
However, Theorem 3.2 reveals that (Q4) may fail only when dF (Σn , Σ) → 0
for some Σ ∈ Sk \ Pk . More importantly, Theorem 4.2 implies that T -scatter
halfspace depth will satisfy (Q4) at any P that is smooth at TP .
In a generic parametric depth setup, (Q3) would require that the parameter space is convex. If the parameter space rather is a non-flat Riemannian manifold, then it is natural to replace the “linear” monotonicity
property (Q3) with a “geodesic” one. In the context of scatter depth, this
would lead to replacing (Q3) with
f Geodesic monotonicity relative to any deepest scatter : if Σa maxi(Q3)
mizes DPsc ( · ), then, for any Σb ∈ Pk , t 7→ DPsc (Σ̃t ) is monotone nonincreasing over [0, 1] along the geodesic path Σ̃t from Σa to Σb in (4.2).

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

17

We refer to Section 7 for a parametric framework where (Q3) cannot
f needs to be adopted instead. For scatter,
be considered and where (Q3)
however, the hybrid nature of Pk , which is both flat (as a convex subset
of the vector space Sk ) and curved (as a Riemannian manifold with nonf Just like (Q3)
positive curvature), allows to consider both (Q3) and (Q3).
sc
f would
follows from quasi-concavity of the mapping Σ 7→ HDP,T (Σ), (Q3)
follow from the same mapping being geodesic quasi-concave, in the sense
that HDP,T (Σ̃t ) ≥ min(HDP,T (Σa ), HDP,T (Σb )) along the geodesic path Σ̃t
from Σa to Σb . Geodesic quasi-concavity would actually imply that scatter
halfspace depth regions are geodesic convex, in the sense that, for any Σa , Σb ∈
sc (α), the geodesic from Σ to Σ is contained in Rsc (α). We refer to
RP,T
a
b
P,T
Dümbgen and Tyler (2016) for an application of geodesic convex functions
to inference on (high-dimensional) scatter matrices.
sc (Σ) is quasi-concave for any P . A natTheorem 3.3 shows that Σ 7→ HDP,T
ural question is then whether or not this extends to geodesic quasi-concavity.
The answer is positive at any k-variate elliptical probability measure and at
the k-variate probability measure with independent Cauchy marginals.
Theorem 5.2. Let P be an elliptical probability measure over Rk or the
k-variate probability measure with independent Cauchy marginals, and let
sc (Σ) is
T be an affine-equivariant location functional. Then, (i) Σ 7→ HDP,T
sc (α) is geodesic convex for any α ≥ 0.
geodesic quasi-concave, so that (ii) RP,T
We close this section with a numerical illustration of the quasi-concavity
results in Theorems 3.3 and 5.2 and with an example showing that geodesic
quasi-concavity may actually fail to hold. Figure 2 provides, for three bivariate probability measures P , the plots of t 7→ HDPsc (Σt ) and t 7→ HDPsc (Σ̃t ),
where Σt = (1 − t)Σa + tΣb is the linear path from Σa = I2 to Σb =
1/2
−1/2
−1/2
1/2
diag(0.001, 20) and where Σ̃t = Σa (Σa Σb Σa )t Σa is the corresponding geodesic path. The three distributions considered are (i) the bivariate
normal with location zero and scatter I2 , (ii) the bivariate distribution with
independent Cauchy marginals, and (iii) the empirical distribution associated with a random sample of size n = 200 from the bivariate mixture
distribution P = 21 P1 + 41 P2 + 14 P3 , where P1 is the standard normal, P2 is
1
the normal with mean (0, 4)0 and covariance matrix 10
I2 , and P3 is the nor1
0
mal with mean (0, −4) and covariance matrix 10 I2 . Figure 2 illustrates that
(linear) quasi-concavity of scatter halfspace depth always holds, but that
geodesic quasi-concavity may fail to hold. Despite this counterexample, extensive numerical experiments led us to think that geodesic quasi-concavity
is the rule rather than the exception.

18

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER
Independent Cauchy

0.3
0.2
0.1

0.2

HDsc
P (Σt)

0.3

0.4

Linear
Geodesic
Harmonic

0.0

0.0

0.1

HDsc
P (Σt)

0.4

0.5

Gaussian

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

t

t

Mixture

Mixture

0.8

1.0

0.8

1.0

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

HDsc
P (Σt)

0
-4

-2

X2

2

4

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

X1

0.6
t

Fig 2. Plots, for various bivariate probability measures P , of the scatter halfspace depth
function Σ 7→ HDPsc (Σ) along the linear path Σt = (1 − t)Σa + tΣb (red), the geodesic
1/2
−1/2
−1/2
1/2
path Σ̃t = Σa (Σa Σb Σa )t Σa (blue), and the harmonic path Σ∗t = ((1 − t)Σ−1
a +
−1 −1
tΣb ) (orange), from Σa = I2 to Σb = diag(0.001, 20); harmonic paths are introduced in
Section 6. The probability measures considered are the bivariate normal with location zero
and scatter I2 (top left), the bivariate distribution with independent Cauchy marginals
(top right), and the empirical probability measure associated with a random sample of
size n = 200 from the bivariate mixture distribution described in Section 5 (bottom right).
The scatter plot of the sample used in the mixture case is provided in the bottom left panel.

6. Concentration halfspace depth. In various setups, the parameter
of interest is the concentration matrix Γ := Σ−1 rather than the scatter
matrix Σ. For instance, in Gaussian graphical models, the (i, j)-entry of Γ is
zero if and only if the ith and jth marginals are conditionally independent
given all other marginals. It may then be useful to define a depth for inverse
scatter matrices. The scatter halfspace depth in (2.1) naturally leads to
defining the T -concentration halfspace depth of Γ with respect to P as
conc
sc
HDP,T
(Γ) := HDP,T
(Γ−1 )
conc (α)
and the corresponding T -concentration halfspace depth regions as RP,T

conc (Γ) ≥ α , α ≥ 0. As indicated by an anonymous ref:= Γ ∈ Pk : HDP,T

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

19

eree, the definition of T -concentration halfspace depth alternatively results,
through the use of “innovated transformation” (see, e.g., Hall and Jin, 2010,
Fan, Jin and Yao, 2013, or Fan and Lv, 2016), from the concept of (an
affine-invariant) T -scatter halfspace depth.
Concentration halfspace depth and concentration halfspace depth regions
inherit the properties of their scatter antecedents, sometimes with subtle modifications. The former is affine-invariant and the latter are affineequivariant as soon as they are based on an affine-equivariant T . Concentration halfspace depth is upper F - and g-semicontinuous for any probabilconc (α) are F - and g-closed) and F ity measure P (so that the regions RP,T
conc (α) are still gand g-continuous if P is smooth at TP . While the regions RP,T
conc (α),
bounded (hence also, F -bounded) for α > αP,T , the outer regions RP,T
α ≤ αP,T , here may fail to be F -bounded (this is because implosion of Σ,
under which scatter halfspace depth may fail to go below αP,T , is associated with explosion of Σ−1 ). Finally, uniform consistency and existence of
a concentration halfspace deepest matrix are guaranteed under the same
conditions on P and T as for scatter halfspace depth.
Quasi-concavity of concentration halfspace depth and convexity of the
corresponding regions require more comments. The linear path t 7→ (1 −
−1
t)Γa + tΓb between the concentration matrices Γa = Σ−1
a and Γb = Σb
−1 −1
∗
−1
between
determines a harmonic path t 7→ Σt := ((1 − t)Σa + tΣb )
the corresponding scatter matrices Σa and Σb . In line with the definitions
adopted in the previous sections, we will say that f : Pk → R is harmonic
quasi-concave if f (Σ∗t ) ≥ min(f (Σa ), f (Σb )) for any Σa , Σb ∈ Pk and t ∈
[0, 1], and that a subset R of Pk is harmonic convex if Σa , Σb ∈ R implies
that Σ∗t ∈ R for any t ∈ [0, 1]. Clearly, concentration halfspace depth is quasiconcave if and only if scatter halfspace depth is harmonic quasi-concave,
which turns out to be the case in the elliptical and independent Cauchy
cases. We thus have the following result.
Theorem 6.1. Let P be an elliptical probability measure over Rk or the
k-variate probability measure with independent Cauchy marginals, and let
conc (Γ) is
T be an affine-equivariant location functional. Then, (i) Γ 7→ HDP,T
conc (α) is convex for any α ≥ 0.
quasi-concave, so that (ii) RP,T
However, concentration halfspace depth may fail to be quasi-concave,
since, as we show by considering the mixture example in Figure 2, scatter halfspace depth may fail to be harmonic quasi-concave. The figure, that
also plots scatter halfspace depth along harmonic paths, confirms that, while
scatter halfspace depth is harmonic quasi-concave for the Gaussian and independent Cauchy examples there, it is not in the mixture example. In

20

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

this mixture example, thus, concentration halfspace depth fails to be quasiconcave and the corresponding depth regions fail to be convex. This is not
a problem per se — recall that famous (location) depth functions, like, e.g.,
the simplicial depth from Liu (1990), may provide non-convex depth regions.
For completeness, we present the following result which shows that some
form of quasi-concavity for concentration halfspace depth survives.
Theorem 6.2. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a loconc (Γ) is harmonic quasi-concave, so
cation functional. Then, (i) Γ 7→ HDP,T
conc (α) is harmonic convex for any α ≥ 0.
that (ii) RP,T
Since concentration halfspace depth is harmonic quasi-concave if and only
if scatter halfspace depth is quasi-concave, the result is a direct corollary of
Theorem 3.3. Quasi-concavity and harmonic quasi-concavity clearly are dual
concepts, relative to scatter and concentration halfspace depths (which justiconc (Γ)
fies the ∗ notation in the path Σ∗t , dual to Σt ). Interestingly, Γ 7→ HDP,T
sc
is geodesic quasi-concave if and only if Σ 7→ HDP,T (Σ) is, so that concentration halfspace depth regions are geodesic convex if and only if scatter
halfspace depth regions are.
7. Shape halfspace depth. In many multivariate statistics problems
(PCA, CCA, sphericity testing, etc.), it is sufficient to know the scatter
matrix Σ up to a positive scalar factor. In PCA, for instance, all scatter matrices of the form cΣ, c > 0, indeed provide the same unit eigenvectors v` (cΣ), ` = 1, . . . , k, hence the same principal components. Moreover, when it comes to deciding how many principal components to work
with, P
a common practice
is to look at the proportions of explained variPk
m
λ
λ
(cΣ)/
ance
`
`=1 ` (cΣ), m = 1, . . . , k − 1, which do not depend
`=1
on c either. In PCA, thus, the parameter of interest is a shape matrix, that
is, a normalized version, V say, of the scatter matrix Σ.
The generic way to normalize a scatter matrix Σ into a shape matrix V is
based on a scale functional S, that is, on a mapping S : Pk → R+
0 satisfying
(i) S(Ik ) = 1 and (ii) S(cΣ) = cS(Σ) for any c > 0 and Σ ∈ Pk . In this paper,
we will further assume that (iii) if Σ1 , Σ2 ∈ Pk satisfy Σ2 ≥ Σ1 (in the sense
that Σ2 − Σ1 is positive semidefinite), then S(Σ2 ) ≥ S(Σ1 ). Such a scale
functional leads to factorizing Σ(∈ Pk ) into Σ = σS2 VS , where σS2 := S(Σ)
is the scale of Σ and VS := Σ/S(Σ) is its shape matrix (in the sequel, we
will drop the subscript S in VS to avoid overloading the notation). The
resulting collection of shape matrices V will be denoted as PkS . Note that
the constraint S(Ik ) = 1 ensures that, irrespective of the scale functional S
adopted, Ik is a shape matrix. Common scale functionals satisfying (i)-(iii)

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

21

∗ (Σ) = k/(tr Σ−1 ),
are (a) Str (Σ) = (tr Σ)/k, (b) Sdet (Σ) = (det Σ)1/k , (c) Str
and (d) S11 (Σ) = Σ11 ; we refer to Paindaveine and Van Bever (2014) for
references where the scale functionals (a)-(d) are used. The corresponding
shape matrices V are then normalized in such a way that (a) tr[V ] = k,
(b) det V = 1, (c) tr[V −1 ] = k, or (d) V11 = 1.
In this section, we propose a concept of halfspace depth for shape matrices.
More precisely, for a probability measure P over Rk , we define the (S, T )shape halfspace depth of V (∈ PkS ) with respect to P as
sh,S
sc
HDP,T
(V ) := sup HDP,T
(σ 2 V ),

(7.1)

σ 2 >0

sc (σ 2 V ) is the T -scatter halfspace depth of σ 2 V with respect
where HDP,T
to P . The corresponding depth regions are defined as
sh,S
sh,S
(V ) ≥ α}
(α) := {V ∈ PkS : HDP,T
RP,T
sh,S
sh,S
(α) when(V ) and RP,T
(alike scatter, we will drop the index T in HDP,T
ever T is the Tukey median). The halfspace deepest shape (if any) is obtained
by maximizing the “profile depth” in (7.1), in the same way a profile likelihood approach would be based on the maximization of a (shape) profile
likelihood of the form Lsh
V = supσ 2 >0 Lσ 2 V . To the best of our knowledge,
such a profile depth construction has never been considered in the literature.
We start the study of shape halfspace depth by considering our running,
Gaussian and independent Cauchy, examples. For the k-variate normal with
location θ0 and scatter Σ0 (hence, with S-shape matrix V0 = Σ0 /S(Σ0 )),

2

σ 7→

sc
HDP,T
(σ 2 V

 



1/2
1/2
bσλk (V0−1 V )
1
bσλ1 (V0−1 V )
p
p
) = 2 min Φ
− , 1−Φ
2
S(Σ0 )
S(Σ0 )

(see (2.6)) will be uniquely maximized at the σ 2 -value for which both arguments of the minimum are equal. It follows that

1/2
sh,S
HDP,T
(V ) = 2Φ c(V0−1 V )λk (V0−1 V ) − 1,


1/2
1/2
where c(Υ) is the unique solution of Φ c(Υ)λk (Υ) − 12 = 1−Φ c(Υ)λ1 (Υ) .
At the k-variate distribution with independent Cauchy marginals, we still
have that (with the same notation as in (2.7))

p


sc
HDP,T
(σ 2 V ) = 2 min Ψ σ/ max(s0 V −1 s)1/2 − 12 , 1−Ψ σ max(diag(V ))
s

22

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

is maximized for fixed V when both arguments of the minimum are equal,
1/2
that is, when σ 2 = maxs (s0 V −1 s)/ max(diag(V ))
. Therefore,

−1/4 
sh,S
HDP,T
(V ) = 2 Ψ max(s0 V −1 s) max(diag(V ))
−1
s


−1/4 
2
arctan max(s0 V −1 s) max(diag(V ))
.
s
π
Figure 3 draws, for six probability measures P and any affine-equivariant T ,
sh,Str
sh,Str
contour plots of (V11 , V12 ) 7→ HDP,T
(V ), where HDP,T
(V ) is the shape


V11 V12
halfspace depth of V = V12 2−V11 with respect to P . Letting ΣA = 10 01 ,


ΣB = 40 01 and ΣC = 31 11 , the probability measures P considered are
those associated (i) with the bivariate normal distributions with location
1/2
zero and scatter ΣA , ΣB and ΣC , and (ii) with the distributions of ΣA Z,
1/2
1/2
ΣB Z and ΣC Z, where Z has independent Cauchy marginals. Note that
the maximal depth is larger in the Gaussian cases than in the Cauchy ones,
that depth monotonically decreases along any ray originating from the deepest shape matrix and that it goes to zero if and only if the shape matrix
converges to the boundary of the parameter space. Shape halfspace depth
contours are smooth in the Gaussian cases but not in the Cauchy ones.
In both the Gaussian and independent Cauchy examples above, the supremum in (7.1) is a maximum. For empirical probability measures Pn , this will
always be the case since HDPscn ,T (σ 2 V ) then takes its values in {`/n : ` =
0, 1, . . . , n}. The following result implies in particular that a sufficient condition for this supremum to be a maximum is that P is smooth at TP (which
is the case in both our running examples above).
=

Theorem 7.1. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losc (α
cation functional. Fix V ∈ PkS such that cV ∈ RP,T
P,T ) for some c > 0.
sh,S
sc (σ 2 V ) for some σ 2 > 0.
Then, HDP,T
(V ) = HDP,T
V
V

The following affine-invariance/equivariance and uniform consistency results are easily obtained from their scatter antecedents.
Theorem 7.2. Let T be an affine-equivariant location functional. Then,
(i) shape halfspace depth is affine-invariant in the sense that, for any probability measure P over Rk , V ∈ PkS , A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk , we have
sh,S
HDPsh,S
(AVA0 /S(AVA0 )) = HDP,T
(V ), where PA,b is as defined on page 4.
A,b ,T
Consequently, (ii) shape halfspace depth regions are affine-equivariant, in the

sh,S
sense that RPsh,S
(α) = AVA0 /S(AVA0 ) : V ∈ RP,T
(α) for any probabilA,b ,T
ity measure P over Rk , α ≥ 0, A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk .

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

23

sh,Str
Fig 3. Contour plots of (V11 , V12 ) 7→ HDP,T
(V ), for several bivariate probability meash,Str
sures P and an arbitrary affine-equivariant location functional T , where HDP,T
(V ) is


V11 V12
1 0
the shape halfspace
depth,
with
respect
to
P
,
of
V
=
.
Letting
Σ
,
A =
V
2−V
0 1


12
11
ΣB = 40 01 and ΣC = 31 11 , the probability measures P considered are those associated
(i) with the bivariate normal distributions with location zero and scatter ΣA , ΣB and ΣC
1/2
1/2
1/2
(top, middle and bottom left), and (ii) with the distributions of ΣA Z, ΣB Z and ΣC Z,
where Z has mutually independent Cauchy marginals (top, middle and bottom right). In
each case, the “true” Str -shape matrix is marked in red.

24

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

Theorem 7.3. Let P be a smooth probability measure over Rk and T
be a location functional. Let Pn denote the empirical probability measure
associated with a random sample of size n from P and assume that TPn → TP
sh,S
almost surely as n → ∞. Then supV ∈P S |HDPsh,S
(V ) − HDP,T
(V )| → 0
n ,T
k
almost surely as n → ∞.
Shape halfspace depth inherits the F - and g-continuity properties of scatter halfspace depth (Theorems 3.1 and 4.1, respectively), at least for a
smooth P . More precisely, we have the following result.
Theorem 7.4. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a locash,S
tion functional. Then, (i) V 7→ HDP,T
(V ) is upper F - and g-semicontinuous
sh,S
sh,S
(α) is
on RP,T (αP,T ), so that (ii) for any α ≥ αP,T , the depth region RP,T
sh,S
F - and g-closed. (iii) If P is smooth at TP , then V 7→ HDP,T (V ) is F - and
g-continuous.
The g-boundedness part of the following result will play a key role when
proving the existence of a halfspace deepest shape.
Theorem 7.5. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losh,S
cation functional. Then, for any α > αP,T , RP,T
(α) is F - and g-bounded,
hence g-compact. If sP,T ≥ 1/2, then this result is trivial in the sense that
sh,S
RP,T
(α) is empty for α > αP,T .
Comparing with the scatter result in Theorem 3.2, the shape result for
F -boundedness requires the additional condition α > αP,T (for g-boundedness, this condition was already required in Theorem 4.2). This condition is
actually necessary for scale functionals S for which implosion of a shape
matrix V cannot be obtained without explosion, as it is the case, e.g.,
for Sdet (the product of the eigenvalues of an Sdet -shape matrix being equal
to one, the smallest eigenvalue of V cannot go to zero without the largest
going to infinity). We illustrate this on the bivariate discrete example discussed below Theorem 4.2, still with an arbitrary centro-equivariant T . The
sequence of scatter matrices Σn = diag( n1 , 1) there defines a sequence of
√
Sdet -shape matrices Vn = diag( √1n , n), that is neither F - nor g-bounded.
sh,Sdet
sc (Σ ) ≥ 1/3 = α
Since HDP,T
(Vn ) ≥ HDP,T
n
P,T for any n, we conclude
sh,Sdet
that RP,T
(αP,T ) is both F - and g-unbounded. Note also that F -boundedsh,S
ness of RP,T
(α) depends on S. In particular, it is easy to check that the
condition α > αP,T for F -boundedness is not needed for the scale func∗
∗ (that is, Rsh,Str (α) is F -bounded for any α > 0). Finally, one
tional Str
P,T

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

25

sh,Str
trivially has that all RP,T
(α)’s are F -bounded since the corresponding collection of shape matrices, PkStr , itself is F -bounded. Unlike F -boundedness,
g-boundedness results are homogeneous in S, which further suggests that
the g-topology is the most appropriate one to study scatter/shape depths.
As announced, the g-part of Theorem 7.5 allows to show that a halfspace
deepest shape exists under mild conditions. More precisely, we have the
following result.

Theorem 7.6. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losh,S
S
cation functional. Assume that RP,T
(αP,T ) is non-empty. Then, α∗P,T
:=
sh,S
sh,S
S
supV ∈P S HDP,T (V ) = HDP,T (V∗ ) for some V∗ ∈ Pk .
k

Alike scatter, a sufficient condition for the existence of a halfspace deepest shape is thus that P is smooth at TP . In particular, a halfspace deepest
shape exists in the Gaussian and independent Cauchy examples. In the kvariate independent Cauchy case, it readily follows from Theorem 4.4 that,
sh,S
(V ) is uniquely maxiirrespective of the centro-equivariant T used, HDP,T
mized at V∗ = Ik , with corresponding maximal depth π2 arctan k −1/4 . The
next Fisher-consistency result states that, in the elliptical case, the halfspace
deepest shape coincides with the “true” shape matrix.
Theorem 7.7. Let P be an elliptical probability measure over Rk with
location θ0 and scatter Σ0 , hence with S-shape matrix V0 = Σ0 /S(Σ0 ), and
sh,S
(V0 ) ≥
let T be an affine-equivariant location functional. Then, (i) HDP,T
sh,S
S
HDP,T (V ) for any V ∈ Pk ; (ii) if IMSD [Z1 ] is a singleton (equivalently,
D
−1/2
if IMSD [Z1 ] = {1}), where Z = (Z1 , . . . , Zk )0 = Σ0 (X − θ0 ), then V 7→
sh,S
(V ) is uniquely maximized at V0 .
HDP,T
We conclude this section by considering quasi-concavity properties of
shape halfspace depth and convexity properties of the corresponding depth
regions. It should be noted that, for some scale functionals S, the collection ∗PkS of S-shape matrices is not convex; for instance, neither PkSdet
S
nor Pk tr is convex, so that it does not make sense to investigate whether
sh,S
or not V 7→ HDP,T
(V ) is quasi-concave for these scale functionals. It does,
however, for Str and S11 , and we have the following result.
Theorem 7.8. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and T be a losh,S
cation functional. Fix S = Str or S = S11 . Then, (i) V 7→ HDP,T
(V ) is
sh,S
quasi-concave, that is, for any Va , Vb ∈ PkS and t ∈ [0, 1], HDP,T
(Vt ) ≥
sh,S
sh,S
min(HDP,T
(Va ), HDP,T
(Vb )), where we let Vt := (1 − t)Va + tVb ; (ii) for
sh,S
any α ≥ 0, RP,T
(α) is convex.

26

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER
S∗

As mentioned above, neither PkSdet nor Pk tr are convex in the usual sense
(unlike for Str and S11 , thus, a unique halfspace deepest shape could not
be defined through barycenters but would rather require a center-of-mass
approach as in (4.3)). However, PkSdet is geodesic convex, which justifies
sh
studying the possible geodesic convexity of RP,S
(α) (this provides a paradet
metric framework for which the shape version of (Q3) in Section 5 cannot
be considered and for which it is needed to adopt the corresponding Prop∗
f instead). Similarly, P Str is harmonic convex, so that it makes sense
erty (Q3)
k
sh,S ∗
to investigate the harmonic convexity of RP,T tr (α). We have the following
results.
Theorem 7.9. Let T be an affine-equivariant location functional and P
be an arbitrary probability measure over Rk for which T -scatter halfspace
sh,Sdet
(V ) is geodesic
depth is geodesic quasi-concave. Then, (i) V 7→ HDP,T
sh,Sdet
quasi-concave, so that (ii) RP,T
(α) is geodesic convex for any α ≥ 0.
Theorem 7.10. Let T be an affine-equivariant location functional and P
be an arbitrary probability measure over Rk for which T -scatter halfspace
sh,S ∗
depth is harmonic quasi-concave. Then, (i) V 7→ HDP,T tr (V ) is harmonic
sh,S ∗
quasi-concave, so that (ii) RP,T tr (α) is harmonic convex for any α ≥ 0.
An illustration of Theorems 7.8-7.10 is provided in Appendix A.3.
8. A real-data application. In this section, we analyze the returns
of the Nasdaq Composite and S&P500 indices from February 1st, 2015 to
February 1st, 2017. During that period, for each trading day and for each
index, we collected returns every 5 minutes (that is, the difference between
the index at a given time and 5 minutes earlier, when available), resulting
in usually 78 bivariate observations per day. Due to some missing values,
the exact number of returns per day varies, and only days with at least
70 observations were considered. The resulting dataset comprises a total of
38489 bivariate returns distributed over D = 478 trading days.
The goal of this analysis is to determine which days, during the two-year
period, exhibit an atypical behavior. In line with the fact that the main
focus in finance is on volatily, atypicality here will refer to deviations from
the “global” behavior either in scatter (i.e., returns do not follow the global
dispersion pattern) or in scale only (i.e., returns show a usual shape but
their overall size is different). Atypical days will be detected by comparing
intraday estimates of scatter and shape with a global version.
Below, Σ̂full will denote the minimum covariance determinant (MCD)
scatter estimate on the empirical distribution Pfull of the returns over the

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

27

two-year period, and V̂full will stand for the resulting shape estimate V̂full =
Σ̂full /Sdet (Σ̂full ). For any d = 1, . . . , D, Σ̂d and V̂d will denote the corresponding estimates on the empirical distribution Pd on day d.
The rationale behind the choice of MCD rather than standard covariance
as an estimation method for scatter/shape is twofold. First, the former will
naturally deal with outliers inherently arising in the data (the first few returns after an overnight or weekend break are famously more volatile and
their importance should be downweighted in the estimation procedure). Second, as hinted above, the global estimate will provide a baseline to measure
the atypicality of any given day, which will be done, among others, using its
intraday depth. It would be natural to use halfspace deepest scatter/shape
matrices on Pfull as global estimates for scatter/shape. While locating the
exact maxima is a non-trivial task, the MCD shape estimator has already
det
a high depth value (HDPsh,S
(V̂full ) = 0.481), which makes it a very good
full
proxy for the halfspace deepest shape. For the same reason, the scaled MCD
sc
2
2
2 V
estimator Σ̄full = σfull
full with σfull = argmaxσ 2 HDPfull (σ Vfull ) (that, obvisc
ously, satisfies HDPfull (Σ̄full ) = 0.481) is similarly an excellent proxy for the
halfspace deepest scatter. In contrast, the shape estimate associated with
the standard covariance matrix (resp., the deepest scaled version of the covariance matrix) has a global shape (resp., scatter) depth of only 0.426.
For each day, the following measures of (a)typicality (three for scatter,
three for shape) are computed: (i) the scatter depth HDPscd (Σ̄full ) of Σ̄full
det
(V̂full ) of V̂full in day d, (iii) the
in day d, (ii) the shape depth HDPsh,S
d
scatter Frobenius distance dF (Σ̂d , Σ̂full ), (iv) the shape Frobenius distance
dF (V̂d , V̂full ), (v) the scatter geodesic distance dg (Σ̂d , Σ̂full ), and (vi) the
shape geodesic distance dg (V̂d , V̂full ). Of course, low depths or high distances
point to atypical days. Practitioners might be tempted to base the distances
in (iii)-(vi) on standard covariance estimates, which would actually provide
poorer performances in the present outlier detection exercise (due to the
masking effect resulting from using a non-robust global dispersion measure
as a baseline). Here, we rather use MCD-based estimates to ensure a fair
comparison with the depth-based methods in (i)-(ii).
Figure 4 provides the plots of the quantities in (i)-(vi) above as a function
of d, d = 1, . . . , D. Major events affecting the returns during the two years
are marked there. They are (1) the Black Monday on August 24th, 2015
(orange) when world stock markets went down substantially, (2) the crude
oil crisis on January 20th, 2016 (dark blue) when oil barrel prices fell sharply,
(3) the Brexit vote aftermath on June 24th, 2016 (dark green), (4) the end
of the low volatility period on September 13th, 2016 (red), (5) the Donald
Trump election on November 9th, 2016 (purple), and (6) the announcement

28

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

and aftermath of the federal rate hikes on December 14th, 2016 (teal).
Detecting atypical events was achieved by flagging outliers in either collections of scatter or shape depth values. This was conducted by constructing
box-and-whisker plots of those collections and marking events with depth
value below 1.5 IQR of the first quartile. This procedure flagged events (1),
(2) and (6) as outlying in scatter and 21 days — including events (1), (2),
(3) and (5) — as atypical in shape. Most of the resulting 22 outlying days
can be associated (that is, are temporally close) to one of the events (1)-(6)
above. For example, 9 days are flagged within the period extending from
January 20th, 2016 to February 9th, 2016, during which continuous slump
in oil prices rocked the marked strongly, with biggest loss for S&P 500 index on February 9th. Remarkably, out of the 22 flagged outliers, only two
(namely October 1st, 2015 and December 14th, 2015) could not be associated with major events. Event (4), although not deemed outlying, was added
to mark the end of the low volatility period.
Events (1) and (2) are noticeably singled out by all outlyingness measures,
displaying low depth values and high Frobenius and geodesic distances, but
the four remaining events tell a very different story. In particular, event (6)
exhibits a low scatter depth but a relatively high shape depth, which means
that this day shows a shape pattern that is in line with the global one but
is very atypical in scale (that is, in volatility size). Quite remarkably, the
four distances considered fail to flag this day as an atypical one. A similar
behavior appears throughout the two-month period spanning July, August
and early September 2016 (between events (3) and (4)), during which the
markets have seen a historical streak of small volatility. This period presents
widely varying scatter depth values together with stable and high shape
depth values, which is perfectly in line with what has been seen on the
markets, where only the volatility of the indices was low in days that were
otherwise typical. Again, the four distance plots are blind to this relative
behavior of scatter and shape in the period.
Events (3) to (5) are picked up by depth measures and scatter distances,
though more markedly by the former. This is particularly so for event (3),
which sticks out sharply in both depths. The fact that the scatter depth
is even lower than the shape depth suggests that event (3) is atypical not
only in shape but also in scale. Interestingly, distance measures fully miss
the shape outlyingness of this event. Actually, shape distances do not assign
large values to any of the events (3) to (6) and, from March 2016 onwards,
these distances stay in the same range — particularly so for the Frobenius
ones in (iv). In contrast, the better ability of shape depth to spot outlyingness may be of particular importance in cases where one wants to discard the

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

29

overall volatility size to rather focus on the shape structure of the returns.
To summarize, the detection of atypical patterns in the dispersion of intraday returns can more efficiently be performed with scatter/shape depths
than on the basis of distance measures. Arguably, the fact that the proposed
depths use all observations and not a sole estimate of scatter/shape allows
to detect deviations from global behaviors more sharply. As showed above,
comparing scatter and shape depth values provides a tool that permits the
distinction between shape and scale outliers.
9. Final comments and perspectives. In this work, we thoroughly
investigated the structural properties of a concept of scatter halfspace depth
linked to those proposed in Zhang (2002) and Chen, Gao and Ren (2017).
While we tried doing so under minimal assumptions, alternative scatter
halfspace depth concepts may actually require even weaker assumptions, but
they typically would make the computational burden heavier in the sample
case. As an example, one might alternatively define the scatter halfspace
depth of Σ(∈ Pk ) with respect to P as
(9.1)

sc
(Σ),
HDPsc,alt (Σ) = sup HDP,θ
θ∈Rk

sc (Σ) is the scatter halfspace depth associated with the constant
where HDP,θ
location functional at θ. This alternative scatter depth concept satisfies a
uniform consistency result such as the one in Theorem 2.2 without any consc (Σ) in (2.1) requires
dition on P , whereas the scatter halfspace depth HDP,T
that P is smooth (see Theorem 2.2). In the sample case, however, evaluation of HDPsc,alt
(Σ) is computationally much more involved than HDPscn ,T (Σ).
n
Alternative concentration and shape halfspace depth concepts may be defined along the same lines and will show the same advantages/disadvantages.
compared to those proposed in this paper.
Another possible concept of scatter halfspace depth bypasses the need to
choose a location functional T by exploiting a pairwise difference approach;
see Zhang (2002) and Chen, Gao and Ren (2017). In our notation, the resulting scatter depth of Σ with respect to P = P X is

(9.2)

HDPsc,U (Σ) = HDPscX−X̃ ,0 (Σ),

where X̃ is an independent copy of X and where 0 denotes the origin of Rk .
On one hand, the sample version of (9.2) is a U -statistic of order two, which
will increase the computational burden compared to the sample version
of (2.1). On the other hand, uniform consistency results for (9.2) (which
here follow from Glivenko-Cantelli results for U -processes, such as the one

30

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

0.3
0.1
0.0

(1)

(2)

Feb 1, 2017
(3)

(4)

(ii)

Feb 1, 2015
20

(iii)

Feb 1, 2016

(5) (6)

(iv)

Feb 1, 2016
(1)

(2)

Feb 1, 2017
(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

0

10
0

5

100

200

^ ,V
^ )
dF(V
d
full

15

300

400

(2)

0.2

(V^ full)
HDPd

sh,Sdet

0.3
0.2
0.1

HDsc
Pd(Σfull)

0.0

(i)

Feb 1, 2015

^ ,Σ
^ )
dF(Σ
d
full

(1)

0.4

(2)

0.4

(1)

0.5

0.5

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

(1)

(2)

Feb 1, 2017
(3)

(4)

Feb 1, 2015

(5) (6)

(vi)

Feb 1, 2016
(1)

(2)

Feb 1, 2017
(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

0

0.0

1

0.5

1.0

^ ,V
^ )
d g (V
d
full

3
2

^ ,Σ
^ )
d g (Σ
d
full

4

1.5

5

(v)

Feb 1, 2016

2.0

Feb 1, 2015

Feb 1, 2015

Feb 1, 2016

Feb 1, 2017

Feb 1, 2015

Feb 1, 2016

Feb 1, 2017

sh,S

Fig 4. Plots of (i) HDPscd (Σ̄full ), (ii) HDPd det (V̂full ), (iii) dF (Σ̂d , Σ̂full ), (iv) dF (V̂d , V̂full ),
(v) dg (Σ̂d , Σ̂full ) and (vi) dg (V̂d , V̂full ), as a function of d, for the MCD scatter and shape
estimates described in Section 8. The horizontal dotted lines in (i)-(ii) correspond to the
sh,S
global depths HDPscfull (Σ̄full ) and HDPfulldet (V̂full ), respectively. All depths make use of the
Tukey median as a location functional. Vertical lines mark the six events listed in Section 8.

in Corollary 3.3 from Arcones and Giné, 1993) will again hold without any
assumption on P , which is due to the fact that, as already mentioned, the
smoothness assumption in Theorem 2.2 is superfluous when a constant location functional T is used. At first sight, thus, the pros and cons for (9.2)
are parallel to those for (9.1), that is, weaker distributional assumptions are

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

31

obtained at the expense of computational ease. However, (9.2) suffers from
a major disadvantage: it does not provide Fisher consistency at the elliptical
model (see (Q2) in Section 5). This results from the fact that if P = P X is elliptical with location θ and scatter Σ, then P X−X̃ is elliptical with location 0
and scatter cP Σ, where the scalar factor cP depends on the type of elliptical distribution: for multinormal and Cauchy elliptical distributions, e.g.,
√
cP = 2 and 4, respectively, so that if one replaces X − X̃ with (X − X̃)/ 2
to achieve Fisher consistency at the multinormal, then Fisher consistency
will still not hold at the Cauchy. Actually, the maximizer of HDPsc,U (Σ) is
useless as a measure of scatter for the original probability measure P , as
its interpretation requires knowing which type of elliptical distribution P is.
This disqualifies the pairwise difference scatter depth, as well as the companion concentration depth. Note, however, that the corresponding shape depth
will not suffer from this Fisher consistency problem since the normalization
of scatter matrices into shape matrices will get rid of the scalar factor cP .
As both previous paragraphs suggest and as it is often the case with
statistical depth, computational aspects are key for the application of the
proposed depths. Evaluating (good approximations of) the scatter halfspace
depth HDPscn ,T (Σ) of a given Σ can of course be done for very small dimensions k = 2 or 3 by simply sampling the unit sphere S k−1 . Even for such
small dimensions, however, computing the halfspace deepest scatter is nontrivial: while scatter halfspace depth relies on a low-dimensional (that is,
k-dimensional) projection-pursuit approach, identifying the halfspace deepest scatter indeed requires exploring the collection of scatter matrices Pk ,
that is of higher dimension, namely of dimension k(k +1)/2. Fortunately, the
fixed-location scatter halfspace depth — hence, also its T -version proposed
in this paper, after appropriate centering of the observations — can be computed in higher dimensions through the algorithm proposed in Chen, Gao
and Ren (2017), where the authors performed simulations requiring to compute the deepest scatter matrix for dimensions and sample sizes as large as 10
and 2000, respectively. Their implementation of this algorithm is available
as an R package at https://github.com/ChenMengjie/DepthDescent.
As pointed by an anonymous referee, the concept of scatter halfspace
depth also makes sense when the parameter space is the compactification
of Pk , that is, is the collection P k of k × k symmetric positive semi-definite
matrices. Interestingly, it is actually easier to investigate the properties
of scatter halfspace depth over P k than over Pk . The F -continuity and
F -boundedness results in Theorems 3.1-3.2 extend, mutatis mutandis, to P k .
Unlike (Pk , dF ), the metric space (P k , dF ) is complete, so that the resc (α) are then F -compact for any α > 0. Consequently, a trivial
gions RP,T

32

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

adaptation of the proof of Theorem 4.3 allows to show that there always exists a halfspace deepest scatter matrix in P k . It is fortunate that these neat
results can be established by considering the F -distance only, as the geodesic
distance, that is unbounded on P k ×P k , could not have been considered here.
Of course, in many applications, Pk remains the natural parameter space
since many multivariate statistics procedures will require inverting scatter
matrices. In such applications, it will be of little help to practitioners that
the deepest halfspace scatter matrix belongs to P k \ Pk , which explains why
our detailed investigation focusing on Pk is of key importance.
Perspectives for future research are rich and diverse. The proposed halfspace depth concepts for scatter, concentration and shape can be extended to
other scatter functionals of interest. In particular, halfspace depths that are
relevant for PCA could result from the “profile depth” approach in Section 7.
For instance, the T -“first principal direction” halfspace depth of β(∈ S k−1 )
with respect to the probability measure P over Rk can be defined as
st

1 pd
(β) =
HDP,T

sup
Σ∈Pk,1,β

sc
HDP,T
(Σ), with Pk,1,β := {Σ ∈ Pk : Σβ = λ1 (Σ)β}.

The halfspace deepest first principal direction is a promising robust estimator of the true underlying first principal direction, at least under ellipticity.
Obviously, the depth of any other principal direction, or the depth of any
eigenvalue, can be defined accordingly. Another direction of research is to
explore inferential applications of the proposed depths. Clearly, point estimation is to be based on halfspace deepest scatter, concentration or shape
matrices; Chen, Gao and Ren (2017) partly studied this already for scatter
in high dimensions. Hypothesis testing is also of primary interest. In particular, a natural test for H0 : Σ = Σ0 , where Σ0 ∈ Pk is fixed, would reject the
null for small values of HDPscn ,T (Σ0 ). For shape matrices, a test of sphericity
would similarly reject the null for small values of HDPsh,S
(Ik ). These topics,
n ,T
obviously, are beyond the scope of the present work.
APPENDIX A: NUMERICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
A.1. Validation of the scatter halfspace depth expressions in (2.6)(2.7). The Monte Carlo exercise we use to validate these expressions is the
following. For each possible combination of n ∈ {100, 500, 2000} and k ∈
{2, 3, 4}, we generated M = 1000 independent random samples of size n
(i) from the k-variate normal distribution with location zero and scatter Ik
and (ii) from the k-variate distribution with independent Cauchy marginals.

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

33

1
B
C
Letting ΛA
k := diag(8, Ik−1 ), Λk := Ik , Λk := diag( 8 , Ik−1 ), and
!
 √1 √1 
2
2
, Ik−2 ,
Ok := diag
−1
1
√

2

√

2

we evaluated, in each sample, the depths HDPscn (Σ` ) of Σ` = Ok Λ`k Ok0 ,
` = A, B, C, where Pn denotes the empirical probability measure associated
with the k-variate sample of size n at hand (each evaluation of HDPscn (·)
is done by approximating the infimum in u ∈ S k−1 by a minimum over
N = 10000 directions randomly sampled from the uniform distribution
over S k−1 ). For each n, k, and each underlying distribution (multinormal
or independent Cauchy), Figure 5 reports boxplots of the corresponding M
values of HDPscn (Σ` ), ` = A, B, C. Clearly, the results support the theoretical
depth expressions obtained in (2.6)-(2.7), as well as the consistency result
in Theorem 2.2 (the bias for HDPscn (ΣB ) in the Gaussian case is explained
by the fact that, as we have seen above, ΣB maximizes HDPsc (Σ), with a
maximal depth value equal to 1/2).
A.2. Illustrations of Theorem 3.3. Figure 6 plots, for k = 2, 3, the
graphs of t 7→ HDPsc (Σt ) for Σt := (1 − t)ΣA + tΣC , where ΣA and ΣC
are the scatter matrices considered in the numerical exercise performed in
Section A.1 and where P is either the k-variate normal distribution with
location zero and scatter Ik or the k-variate distribution with independent
Cauchy marginals. The same figure also provides the corresponding sample
plots, based on a single random sample of size n = 50 drawn from each of
these two distributions. All plots are compatible with the quasi-concavity resc (Σ )
sult in Theorem 3.3. Figure 6 also illustrates the continuity of t 7→ HDP,T
t
for smooth probability measures P (Theorem 3.1) and shows that continuity
may fail to hold in the sample case.
A.3. Illustrations of Theorems 7.8-7.10. Figure 7 draws, for an arbitrary affine-equivariant location functional T , contour plots of (V11 , V12 ) 7→
sh,S
∗ , where HD sh,S (V ) is
HDP,T
(VS ), for the scale functionals Str , Sdet and Str
S
P,T
the shape halfspace depth, with respect to P , of the S-shape VS (∈ P2S ) with
upper-left entry V11 and upper-right entry V12 . The probability measures P
considered are those associated (i) with the
 bivariate normal distribution
3 1
with location zero and scatter ΣC = 1 1 , and (ii) with the distribution
1/2

of ΣC Z, where Z has mutually independent Cauchy marginals. For Str ,
∗ , the figure also shows the linear, geodesic and harmonic paths,
Sdet and Str
respectively, linking the
 (“true”) S-shape
 associated with ΣC and those associated with ΣA = 10 01 and ΣB = 40 01 . The results illustrate the convexity

34

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER
Independent Cauchy

0.20
0.10
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

n=2000
n=500
n=100

0.00

HDsc
Pn(ΣA)

0.30

Gaussian

k=4

k=2

k=3

k=4

k=2

k=3

k=4

k=3

k=4

k=2

k=3

k=4

k=2

k=3

k=4

0.4
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.0

0.1

HDsc
Pn(ΣB)
HDsc
Pn(ΣC)

k=2
0.5

k=3

0.5

k=2

Fig 5. Boxplots, for various values of n and k, of HDPscn (ΣA ) (top row), HDPscn (ΣB ) (middle row) and HDPscn (ΣC ) (bottom row) based on M = 1000 independent random samples of
size n from the k-variate multinormal distribution with location zero and scatter Ik (left)
or from the k-variate distribution with independent Cauchy marginals (right); we refer to
Section A.1 for the expressions of ΣA , ΣB and ΣC .

sh,Str
of the regions RP,T
(α), along with the geodesic (resp., harmonic) convexity
sh,S ∗

sh,Sdet
of the regions RP,T
(α) (resp., RP,T tr (α)).

35

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

0.5

Independent Cauchy

0.5

Gaussian

0.4
0.3
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3
0.2
0.0

0.1

HDsc
P (Σt)

0.4

k=2
k=3

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

t

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

t

Fig 6. The dotted curves are the graphs of t 7→ HDPsc (Σt ), where Σt = (1 − t)ΣA + tΣC
involves the scatter matrices ΣA and ΣC considered in Figure 5, for the k-variate normal
distribution with location zero and scatter I2 (left) and for the k-variate distribution with
independent Cauchy marginals (right). The solid curves are associated with a single random sample of size n = 50 from the corresponding distributions. Red and blue correspond
to the bivariate and trivariate cases, respectively; in the population Gaussian case, the
graph of t 7→ HDPsc (Σt ) is the same for k = 2 and k = 3, hence is plotted in black.

APPENDIX B: PROOFS
In the proofs below, we will often use the fact that
√
√

 

sc
HDP,T
(Σ) = inf min P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σu , P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σu
u

√
√




= min inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σu , inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σu ,


u

u

where all infima are over the unit sphere S k−1 of Rk .
B.1. Proofs from Section 2.
Proof of Theorem 2.1. Fix A ∈ GLk and b ∈ Rk . By using the affineequivariance of T (that is, TPA,b = ATP + b) and letting uA := A0 u/kA0 uk,

36

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

we obtain
HDPscA,b ,T (AΣA0 )
=
=

inf

√
√

 

min P |u0 A(X − TP )| ≤ u0 AΣA0 u , P |u0 A(X − TP )| ≥ u0 AΣA0 u

inf

p
p

 

min P |u0A (X − TP )| ≤ u0A ΣuA , P |u0A (X − TP )| ≥ u0A ΣuA

u∈S k−1

u∈S k−1

sc
= HDP,T
(Σ),

where the last equality follows from the fact that the mapping u 7→ uA is a
one-to-one transformation of S k−1 .

We now establish the explicit scatter halfspace depth expression (2.7) in
the independent Cauchy case. For that purpose, consider again a random
vector X = (X1 , . . . , Xk )0 with independent Cauchy marginals. Using the
fact that,P
for any non-negative
real numbers a` , ` = 1, . . . , k, the random
P
variables k`=1 a` X` and ( k`=1 a` )X1 then share the same distribution, we
P
obtain that, denoting by kxk1 = k`=1 |x` | the L1 -norm of x = (x1 , . . . , xk )0 ,
√ 0 
√
√
 0



u Σu
0
0
P |u X| ≤ u Σu = P kuk1 |X1 | ≤ u Σu = 2Ψ
− 1,
kuk1
where Ψ is the Cauchy cumulative distribution function. Therefore, if T is
centro-equivariant, we obtain
√
√
 



u0 Σu
u0 Σu
sc
HDP,T (Σ) = min 2Ψ
inf
− 1, 2 − 2Ψ
sup
u∈S k−1 kuk1
u∈S k−1 kuk1


√
√
 1

0
0
= 2 min Ψ min v Σv − 2 , 1 − Ψ max v Σv ,
v

v

where the minimum and maximum in v are over the unit L1 -sphere {v ∈
Rk : kvk1 = 1}. The formula (2.7) then follows from the following result.
0
Lemma B.1. For any Σ ∈ Pk , the maximal and minimal
Pk values of v Σv
k
when v runs over the L1 -sphere {v ∈ R : kvk1 =
i=1 |vi | = 1} are
0
−1
max(diag(Σ)) and 1/ maxs (s Σ s), respectively, where maxs is the maximum over s = (s1 , . . . , sk ) ∈ {−1, 1}k .

Proof of Lemma B.1. We start with the following considerations. In
dimension k, the L1 -sphere can be parametrized as
vs,t = (s1 t1 , s2 t2 , . . . , sk−1 tk−1 , sk (1 − t1 − . . . − tk−1 ))0 ,

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

37

where s = (s1 , . . . , sk ) ∈ {−1, 1}k and (t1 , . . . , tk−1 ) ∈ Simplk−1 := {(t1 , . . . ,
tk−1 ) : t1 ≥ 0, . . . , tk−1 ≥ 0, t1 + . . . + tk−1 ≤ 1}. Clearly, symmetry of the
L1 -sphere and of the function to be maximized/minimized allows to restrict
to sk = 1. Now, for any given s of the form (s1 , . . . , sk−1 , 1), consider the
function
fs :

Simplk−1

→ R

0
t = (t1 , . . . , tk−1 ) 7→ vs,t
Σvs,t .

This function is twice differentiable, with a gradient ∇fs (t) whose ith component is
∂
0
fs (t) = (0, ..., 0, si , 0, . . . , −1)Σvs,t + vs,t
Σ(0, ..., 0, si , 0, . . . , −1)0
∂ti
= 2(0, ..., 0, si , 0, . . . , −1)Σvs,t
and a Hessian matrix Hs (t) whose (i, j)-entry is
∂2
fs (t) = 2(0, ..., 0, si , 0, . . . , −1)Σ(0, ..., 0, sj , 0, . . . , −1)0 .
∂ti tj
Now, for any z ∈ Rk−1 ,
z 0 Hs (t)z = 2(s1 z1 , ..., sk zk , −z1 −. . .−zk )Σ(s1 z1 , ..., sk zk , −z1 −. . .−zk )0 ≥ 0,
with equality if and only if z = 0. Therefore, fs is strictly convex over Simplk−1 .
Let us start with the maximum. For a given s, strict convexity of fs implies
that the maximum of fs can only be achieved at ei,k−1 , i = 1, . . . , k − 1,
where ei,` stands for the ith vector of the canonical basis of R` , or at 0(∈
Rk−1 ). Since fs (ei,k−1 ) = Σii , i = 1, . . . , k − 1, and fs (0) = Σkk , it follows
that the maximal value of fs over Simplk−1 is max(diag(Σ)). Since this is the
case for any s, we conclude that the maximum of v 0 Σv over the L1 -sphere
is itself max(diag(Σ)).
Let us then turn to the minimum. The minimum of fs , when extended
into a (still strictly convex) function defined on Rk−1 , is the solution of the
gradient conditions
(0, ..., 0, si , 0, . . . , −1)Σvs,t = 0,
Writing simply ek = ek,k for the kth vector of
letting

s1

..
Ss = 
.

sk−1

i = 1, . . . , k − 1.
the canonical basis of Rk and

−1
.. 

. ,
−1

38

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

these gradient conditions rewrite Ss Σ(ek +Ss0 t) = 0 (recall that we restricted
to sk = 1), and their unique solution in Rk−1 is tmin
:= −(Ss ΣSs0 )−1 Ss Σek .
s
It will be useful below to have a more explicit expression of tmin
s . Note
0
min
that the gradient conditions above state that Σ(ek + Ss ts ) is in the null
space of Ss . Since this null space is easily checked to be {λs : λ ∈ R}, this
implies that ek + Ss0 tmin
= λΣ−1 s for some λ ∈ R. Premultiplying both sides
s
0
of this equation by s , we obtain 1 = λs0 Σ−1 s, which yields λ = 1/(s0 Σ−1 s).
Thus,
ek + Ss0 tmin
=
s

(B.1)

1
Σ−1 s.
s0 Σ−1 s

In the first k − 1 components, this yields (after multiplication by si )
(B.2)

(tmin
s )i =

si e0i Σ−1 s
,
s0 Σ−1 s

i = 1, . . . , k − 1,

while the kth component provides (still with sk = 1)
(B.3)

1−

k−1
X
i=1

(tmin
s )i =

e0k Σ−1 s
sk e0k Σ−1 s
=
·
s0 Σ−1 s
s0 Σ−1 s

Strict convexity of fs implies that its minimal value over Rk−1 is fs (tmin
s ).
By using (B.1), this minimal value takes the form
0
0 min
0
= (ek + Ss0 tmin
fs (tmin
s ) Σ(ek + Ss ts ) =
s ) = vs,tmin Σvs,tmin
s
s

1
·
s0 Σ−1 s

Now, consider an arbitrary sign k-vector s∗ that maximizes s0 Σ−1 s among
the 2k−1 corresponding sign vectors s to be considered (the last component
of s is still fixed to one). Assume for a moment that tmin
s∗ is in the interior
of Simplk−1 . Since it is the minimal value of fs∗ over Rk−1 , fs∗ (tmin
s∗ ) =
1/(s0∗ Σ−1 s∗ ) of courses minimizes fs∗ over Simplk−1 . Pick then another sign
vector s. By construction, 1/(s0∗ Σ−1 s∗ ) is smaller than or equal to fs (tmin
s )=
1/(s0 Σ−1 s), which, as the minimal value of fs when extended to Rk−1 , can
only be smaller than or equal to the minimal value of fs over Simplk−1 .
Therefore, 1/(s0∗ Σ−1 s∗ ) is then the minimal value of v 0 Σ−1 v over the unit
L1 -sphere.
It thus remains to show that tmin
s∗ indeed belongs to the interior of Simplk−1 .
Equivalently (in view of (B.2)-(B.3)), it remains to show that s∗i e0i Σ−1 s∗ > 0
for i = 1, . . . , k. Assume then that s∗` e0` Σ−1 s∗ ≤ 0 for some `. Defining s∗∗ as
the vector obtained from s∗ by only changing the sign of its `th component,

39

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

that is, putting s∗∗ := s∗ − 2s∗` e` , we have
s0∗∗ Σ−1 s∗∗ − s0∗ Σ−1 s∗ = (s∗ − 2s∗` e` )0 Σ−1 (s∗ − 2s∗` e` ) − s0∗ Σ−1 s∗
= −4s∗` e0` Σ−1 (s∗ − s∗` e` ) = −4s∗` e0` Σ−1 s∗ + 4e0` Σ−1 e` > 0,
which contradicts the maximality property of s∗ .



The proof of Theorem 2.2 requires Lemmas B.2-B.4 below. Before proceeding, we introduce the inner and outer “slabs”
in
Hu,c
:= {x ∈ Rk : |u0 x| ≤ c}

out
Hu,c
:= {x ∈ Rk : |u0 x| ≥ c}.

and

Henceforth, the superscript “in/out” is to be read as “in (resp., out)”. We
will further write B(θ, r) for the ball {x ∈ Rk : kx − θk < r} and B̄(θ, r) for
its closure.
Lemma B.2. Let P, Q be two probability measures over Rk . Define
in/out
in/out
in/out
in/out
HDP,T (Σ) := inf u∈S k−1 P [TP + Σ1/2 Hu
], with Hu
:= Hu,1 .
Then, for any Σ ∈ Pk ,
in/out

|HDP,T

≤

in/out

(Σ) − HDQ,T (Σ)|
sup

|P [C] − Q[C]| +

C∈C in/out

sup

|P [TQ + C] − P [TP + C]|,

in/out

C∈C0
in/out

where we let C in/out := {θ+Hu,c
in/out
{Hu,c
: (u, c) ∈ S k−1 × R+
0 }.

in/out

: (θ, u, c) ∈ Rk ×S k−1 ×R+
0 } and C0

:=

Proof of Lemma B.2. We prove only the “in” result, since the proof of
in (Σ) ≥ HD in (Σ).
the “out” result is entirely similar. First assume that HDP,T
Q,T
Then, for any ε > 0, there exists u0 = u0 (Σ, Q, ε) such that Q[TQ +
in (Σ) + ε, so that
Σ1/2 Huin0 ] ≤ HDQ,T
in
in
in
in
|HDP,T
(Σ) − HDQ,T
(Σ)| = HDP,T
(Σ) − HDQ,T
(Σ)

≤ P [TP + Σ1/2 Huin0 ] − Q[TQ + Σ1/2 Huin0 ] + ε
≤ P [TQ + Σ1/2 Huin0 ] − Q[TQ + Σ1/2 Huin0 ]
+P [TP + Σ1/2 Huin0 ] − P [TQ + Σ1/2 Huin0 ] + ε
≤ sup |P [C] − Q[C]| + sup |P [TQ + C] − P [TP + C]| + ε.
C∈C in

C∈C0in

40

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

in (Σ) ≤ HD in (Σ), then, for any ε > 0, there exists u =
Similarly, if HDP,T
1
Q,T
1/2
in
in
u1 (Σ, P, ε) such that P [TP + Σ Hu1 ] ≤ HDP,T (Σ) + ε, so that
in
in
in
in
|HDP,T
(Σ) − HDQ,T
(Σ)| = HDQ,T
(Σ) − HDP,T
(Σ)

≤ Q[TQ + Σ1/2 Huin1 ] − P [TP + Σ1/2 Huin1 ] + ε
≤ Q[TQ + Σ1/2 Huin1 ] − P [TQ + Σ1/2 Huin1 ]
+P [TQ + Σ1/2 Huin1 ] − P [TP + Σ1/2 Huin1 ] + ε
≤ sup |P [C] − Q[C]| + sup |P [TQ + C] − P [TP + C]| + ε.
C∈C in

C∈C0in

Since, in both cases, the result holds for any ε > 0, the result is proved. 
Lemma B.3. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and K be a compact
0
subset of Rk . For any c > 0, let sK
P (c) := sup(θ,u)∈K×S k−1 P [|u (X − θ)| ≤ c]
>
K
K
K
K
and write sK
P := sP (0). Then (i) sP (c) → sP as c → 0 and (ii) sP =
0
k−1
P [u0 (X − θ0 ) = 0] for some (θ0 , u0 ) ∈ K × S
.
Proof of Lemma B.3. Clearly, sK
P (c) is increasing in c over [0, ∞),
K
K
K
K
which guarantees that s̃P := limc→0
> sP (c) exists and satisfies s̃P ≥ sP .
Now, fix an arbitrary decreasing sequence (cn ) converging to 0 and consider
a sequence ((θn , un )) in K × S k−1 such that
P [|u0n (X − θn ) ≤ cn ] ≥ sK
P (cn ) − (1/n).
Compactness of K×S k−1 guarantees the existence of a subsequence ((θn` , un` ))
that converges in K ×S k−1 , to (θ0 , u0 ) say. Clearly, without loss of generality,
we can assume that (u0n` u0 ) is an increasing sequence and that kθn` −θ0 k is a
decreasing sequence (if that is not the case, one can always extract a further
subsequence which meets these monotonicity properties). Let then B̄` :=
B̄(θ0 , kθn` − θ0 k) and C` := {u ∈ S k−1 : u0 u0 ≥ u0n` u0 }. Clearly, B̄` and C`
are decreasing sequences of sets, with ∩` B̄` = {θ0 } and ∩` C` = {u0 }. Therefore,
lim r` := lim P [X ∈ ∪θ∈B̄` ∪u∈C` {x = θ + y : |u0 y| ≤ cn` }]

`→∞

`→∞

= P [u00 (X − θ0 ) = 0].
Now, for any `, r` ≥ P [|u0n` (X−θn` )| ≤ cn` ] ≥ sK
P (cn` )−(1/n` ), which implies
K
0
K
K
0
that sP ≥ P [|u0 (X −θ0 )| = 0] ≥ s̃P . Therefore, s̃K
P = sP = P [|u0 (X −θ0 )| =
0].


SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

Lemma B.4.
Then

41

Let P be a smooth probability measure over Rk and fix θ0 ∈

Rk .

sup
(u,c)∈S k−1 ×R+
0

in/out
in/out
|P [θ + Hu,c
] − P [θ0 + Hu,c
]| → 0

as θ → θ0 .
Proof of Lemma B.4. We start with the “in” result. Fix ε > 0.
Pick c1 > 0 large enough to have P [B(θ0 , c1 /2)] ≥ 1 − (ε/2). Pick then c0 ∈
B̄(θ ,2c )
(0, c1 ) such that sP 0 1 (c0 ) < ε/2 for any c ∈ (0, c0 ] (existence of such a c0
is guaranteed by Lemma B.3 and the smoothness assumption on P ). Then,

in
in
in
in
sup
|P [θ + Hu,c
] − P [θ0 + Hu,c
]| = max Qin
0,c0 , Qc0 ,c1 , Qc1 ,∞ ,
(u,c)∈S k−1 ×R+
0

in
in
in
in
where Qin
0,c0 , Qc0 ,c1 and Qc1 ,∞ are the suprema of |P [θ + Hu,c ] − P [θ0 + Hu,c ]|
over u ∈ S k−1 and, respectively, c ∈ (0, c0 ], c ∈ (c0 , c1 ] and c ∈ (c1 , ∞). Now,
fix δ ∈ (0, min(c0 , c1 /2)) and let θ ∈ B(θ0 , δ).
(i) The choice of c0 implies

Qin
0,c0
(B.4)

≤

in
in
sup P [θ + Hu,c
] + sup P [θ0 + Hu,c
]
0
0

u∈S k−1

≤ 2

u∈S k−1

sup
(θ,u)∈B̄(θ0 ,2c1 )×S k−1

in
P [θ + Hu,c
] ≤ ε.
0

(ii) Let u ∈ S k−1 and c ≥ c0 . Assume, without loss of generality, that
in
− θ0 ) ≥ 0 (the case u0 (θ − θ0 ) ≤ 0 proceeds similarly). The set θ + Hu,c
rewrites

u0 (θ

in
θ + Hu,c
= {θ + x : |u0 x| ≤ c} = {θ0 + y : |u0 y − (u0 (θ − θ0 ))| ≤ c}.

Therefore,
in
in
|P [θ + Hu,c
] − P [θ0 + Hu,c
]|
h
i
≤ P {θ0 + y : −c ≤ u0 y ≤ −c + u0 (θ − θ0 )}

h
i
+P {θ0 + y : c ≤ u0 y ≤ c + u0 (θ − θ0 )}
h
i
≤ P {θ0 + y : −c ≤ u0 y ≤ −c + δ}
(B.5)

h
i
+P {θ0 + y : c ≤ u0 y ≤ c + δ} .

42

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

(iia) For u ∈ S k−1 and c0 < c ≤ c1 , set θ1 = θ0 − cu + δu/2 and θ2 =
θ0 + cu + δu/2. It holds {θ0 + y : −c ≤ u0 y ≤ −c + δ} = {θ1 + x : |u0 x| ≤ δ/2}
B̄(θ ,2c )
and {θ0 + y : c ≤ u0 y ≤ cδ} = {θ2 + x : |u0 x| ≤ δ/2}. Since sP 0 1 (δ/2) ≤
B̄(θ0 ,2c1 )

sP

(B.6)

(c0 ) < ε/2 and kθ` − θ0 k ≤ c + δ/2 < 2c1 (` = 1, 2), (B.5) yields
h
i
0
Qin
≤
2
sup
P
{θ
+
x
:
|u
x|
≤
δ/2}
≤ ε.
c0 ,c1
(θ,u)∈B̄(θ0 ,2c1 )×S k−1

(iib) For u ∈ S k−1 and c > c1 , the sets {θ0 + y : −c ≤ u0 y ≤ −c + δ} and
{θ0 + y : c ≤ u0 y ≤ c + δ} lie outside the ball B(θ0 , c1 /2) since −c + δ <
−c + (c1 /2) < −c1 /2 and c > c1 > c1 /2, respectively. Therefore, it follows
from (B.5) that
 k
(B.7)
Qin
c1 ,∞ ≤ 2P R \ B(θ0 , c1 /2)] ≤ ε.
in
According to (B.4), (B.6) and (B.7), all three quantities Qin
0,c0 , Qc0 ,c1 and
in
Qc1 ,∞ are bounded by ε as soon as kθ − θ0 k < δ, which concludes the proof
of the “in” result.
The proof of the “out” result proceeds similarly. For the same choices of
out
out
c0 , c1 and δ, and the respective suprema Qout
0,c0 , Qc0 ,c1 and Qc1 ,∞ , it holds

Qout
c1 ,∞ ≤

out
out
sup P [θ + Hu,c
] + sup P [θ0 + Hu,c
]
1
1

u∈S k−1

≤ 2

u∈S k−1



P Rk \ B(θ0 , c1 /2) ≤ ε.

sup
(θ,u)∈B̄(θ0 ,c1 /2)×S k−1

Moreover, the inequality Qout
0,c0 ≤ ε follows from the fact that
out
out
in
in
|P [θ + Hu,c
] − P [θ0 + Hu,c
]| ≤ P [θ + Hu,c
] + P [θ0 + Hu,c
]
0
0

for c ≤ c0 . Finally, it can be proved that Qout
c0 ,c1 ≤ ε along the exact same
lines as above. The “out” result follows.

Proof of Theorem 2.2. The collection H of all halfspaces in Rk is a
Vapnik-Chervonenkis class; see, e.g., page 152 of Van der Vaart and Wellner
(1996). Hence, Lemma 2.6.17 of the same implies that H u H := {H1 ∩
H2 : H1 , H2 ∈ H} and H t H := {H1 ∪ H2 : H1 , H2 ∈ H} are also
Vapnik-Chervonenkis classes. Consequently, using henceforth the notation
from Lemma B.2, C in (⊂ H u H) and C out (⊂ H t H) are themselves VapnikChervonenkis classes, which implies that
(B.8)

sup |Pn [C] − P [C]| → 0
C∈C in

and

sup |Pn [C] − P [C]| → 0
C∈C out

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

43

almost surely as n → ∞. Also, since TPn → TP almost surely as n → ∞,
Lemma B.4 entails
(B.9)
sup |P [TPn +C]−P [TP +C]| → 0 and
sup |P [TPn +C]−P [TP +C]| → 0
C∈C0out

C∈C0in

almost surely as n → ∞.
Now, by using Lemma B.2, we obtain that, for any Σ ∈ Pk ,
sc
|HDPscn ,T (Σ) − HDP,T
(Σ)|
in
out
= | min(HDPinn ,T (Σ), HDPout
(Σ)) − min(HDP,T
(Σ), HDP,T
(Σ))|
n ,T


in
out
≤ max |HDPinn ,T (Σ) − HDP,T
(Σ)|, |HDPout
(Σ) − HDP,T
(Σ)|
n ,T
≤ max



sup |Pn [C] − P [C]| + sup |P [TPn + C] − P [TP + C]|,

C∈C in

C∈C0in


sup |Pn [C] − P [C]| + sup |P [TPn + C] − P [TP + C]| .

C∈C out

C∈C0out

Consequently,
sc
sup |HDPscn ,T (Σ) − HDP,T
(Σ)|

Σ∈Pk

≤ max



sup |Pn [C] − P [C]| + sup |P [TPn + C] − P [TP + C]|,

C∈C in

C∈C0in


sup |Pn [C] − P [C]| + sup |P [TPn + C] − P [TP + C]| ,

C∈C out

C∈C0out

which, in view of (B.8) and (B.9), establishes the result.



We close this section by proving that the Tukey median θP is strongly
consistent without any assumption on P .
Lemma B.5. Let P be a probability measure over Rk and Pn denote the
empirical measure associated with a random sample of size n from P . Then
θPn → θP almost surely as n → ∞.
Proof of Lemma B.5. For any θ ∈ Rk and any probability measure Q
loc (θ) the location halfspace depth of θ with respect
over Rk , denote by HDQ
loc = {θ ∈ Rk :
to Q. Recall that we defined θQ as the barycentre of MQ

44

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

loc (θ) = max
loc
loc
HDQ
η∈Rk HDQ (η)}. It is well known that θ 7→ HDQ (θ) is
upper semicontinuous; see, e.g., Lemma 6.1 in Donoho and Gasko (1992).
In general, this function is not uniquely maximized at θQ . However, it is
loc
easy to define a modified depth function θ 7→ HDQ,mod
(θ) that is still upper
loc
k
loc
semicontinuous, agrees with θ 7→ HDQ (θ) on R /MQ , and for which θQ
is the unique maximizer. In view of the uniform consistency of location
halfspace depth (see, e.g., (6.2) and (6.6) in Donoho and Gasko, 1992), the
result then follows from Theorem 2.12 and Lemma 14.3 in Kosorok (2008).


B.2. Proofs from Section 3.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. (i) Fix u ∈ S k−1 . Since Huin := {x ∈ Rk :
|u0 x| ≤ 1} is a closed subset of Rk , the mapping P 7→ P [Huin ] is upper
semicontinuous for weak convergence. Now, Slutzky’s lemma entails that,
as dF (Σ, Σ0 ) → 0, the measure defined by B 7→ P [TP + Σ1/2 B] converges
1/2
weakly to the one defined by B 7→ P [TP + Σ0 B]. Therefore, Σ 7→ P [TP +
Σ1/2 Huin ] is upper F -semicontinuous at Σ0 . Since Huout := {x ∈ Rk : |u0 x| ≥
1} is also a closed subset of Rk , the same argument shows that Σ 7→ P [TP +
Σ1/2 Huout ] is upper F -semicontinuous at Σ0 . Therefore


sc
Σ 7→ HDP,T
(Σ) = min
inf P [TP + Σ1/2 Huin ], inf P [TP + Σ1/2 Huout ] ,
u∈S k−1

u∈S k−1

is upper F -semicontinuous (recall that the infimum of a collection of upper
semicontinuous functions is upper semicontinuous).
sc (α) is the inverse
(ii) The result directly follows from the fact that RP,T
sc (Σ).
image of [α, +∞) by the upper F -semicontinuous function Σ 7→ HDP,T
(iii) Fix a sequence (Σn ) in Pk converging to Σ0 with respect to the
Frobenius distance. With the same notation as in the proof of (i), note that,
for any Σ,


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) = inf min P [TP + Σ1/2 Huin ], P [TP + Σ1/2 Huout ] .
u∈S k−1

For any n, pick then un (∈ S k−1 ) such that


1
in
1/2 out
sc
min P [TP + Σ1/2
H
],
P
[T
+
Σ
H
]
≤ HDP,T
(Σn ) + ·
P
n
un
n
un
n
Compactness of S k−1 implies that we can extract a subsequence (un` ) of (un )
that converges to u0 (∈ S k−1 ). Writing I[C] for the indicator function of the

45

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

set C, the dominated convergence theorem then yields that
1/2

in
in
P [TP + Σ1/2
n` Hun` ] − P [TP + Σ0 Hu0 ]
Z
1/2
(I[TP + Σn1/2
Huinn ] − I[TP + Σ0 Huin0 ]) dP → 0
=
`
`

Rk

1/2

as ` → ∞ (the smoothness assumption on P guarantees that I[TP +Σn` Huinn ]−
`
1/2
I[TP + Σ0 Huin0 ] → 0 P -almost everywhere). Proceeding in the same way,
1/2

1/2

] − P [TP + Σ0 Huout
] → 0 as ` → ∞.
we obtain that P [TP + Σn` Huout
n`
0
Consequently,


sc
lim inf HDP,T
(Σn ) = lim inf min P [TP + Σn1/2 Huinn ], P [TP + Σn1/2 Huout
]
n
n→∞

n→∞



in
1/2 out
= lim inf min P [TP + Σn1/2
H
],
P
[T
+
Σ
H
]
P
un
n`
un
`
`

`→∞

`




1/2
1/2
= min P [TP + Σ0 Huin0 ], P [TP + Σ0 Huout
]
0
sc
≥ HDP,T
(Σ0 ).
sc (Σ) is also lower
We conclude that, if P is smooth at Tp , then Σ → HDP,T
F -semicontinuous, hence F -continuous.

√
Proof of Theorem
√ 3.2. Fix α > 0. Note that λ1 (Σ) ≥ kΣkF / k ≥
(kΣ − Ik kF − kIk kF )/ k for any Σ ∈ Pk . Therefore, denoting by v1 (Σ) an
arbitrary unit eigenvector associated with λ1 (Σ), we have that, for any Σ ∈
/
BF (Ik , r),
√


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) ≤ inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σu
u∈S k−1

≤ P [|v10 (Σ)(X − TP )| ≥

h
p
λ1 (Σ)] ≤ P kX − TP k ≥

(r−1)1/2
k1/4

i

,

which can be made strictly smaller than α for r large enough. This confirms
sc (α) is included in the ball B (I , r), hence is
that, for r large enough, RP,T
F k
F -bounded.

Proof of Theorem 3.3. (i) With Σt = (1 − t)Σa + tΣb , we clearly have
that, for any u ∈ S k−1 , min(u0 Σa u, u0 Σb u) ≤ u0 Σt u ≤ max(u0 Σa u, u0 Σb u).
This entails that, for any u ∈ S k−1 ,


√
P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σt u

 

√
√
≥ min(P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σa u , P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σb u )
sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb ))

46

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

and


√
P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σt u

 

√
√
≥ min(P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σa u , P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σb u )
sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )).
sc (α), then Part (i) of the result
The result follows. (ii) If both Σa , Σb ∈ RP,T
sc
sc (Σ ), HD sc (Σ )) ≥
entails that, for any t ∈ [0, 1], HDP,T (Σt ) ≥ min(HDP,T
a
b
P,T
sc (α).
α, so that Σt ∈ RP,T


B.3. Proofs from Section 4. For the sake of completeness, we prove
the following result.
Lemma B.6. Let R be a g-bounded subset of Pk . Then R is totally gbounded, that is, for any ε, there exist Σi , i = 1, . . . , m = m(ε) such that R ⊂
∪m
i=1 Bg (Σi , ε).
Proof of Lemma B.6. As a mapping from the metric space (Sk , dF )
(recall that dF denotes the Frobenius distance) to the metric space (Pk , dg ),
A 7→ exp(A) is continuous; see the proof of Proposition 10 in Bhatia and
Holbrook (2006). Denoting, for any A ∈ Sk , as vech(A) the vector obtained by stacking the upper-diagonal entries of A on top of each other,
the mapping v 7→ vech−1 (v) from (Rk(k+1)/2 , dE ) (equipped with the usual
Euclidean distance dE ) to (Sk , dF ) is trivially continuous, so that the mapping f : (Rk(k+1)/2 , dE ) → (Pk , dg ) : v 7→ f (v) := exp(vech−1 (v)) is also
continuous.
Now, fix ε > 0, pick r > 0 such that R is included in the closed ball B̄ :=
B̄g (Ik , r) := {Σ ∈ Pk : dg (Σ, Ik ) ≤ r}, and consider the resulting open
covering {Bg (Σ, ε) : Σ ∈ B̄} of B̄. From continuity, C := {f −1 (Bg (Σ, ε)) :
Σ ∈ B̄} is an open covering of the closed set f −1√
(B̄) in Rk(k+1)/2 . It is
easy to check that, for any Σ ∈ B̄, λ1 (Σ) ≤ exp(r/ k), so that f −1 (B̄) is
bounded, hence compact. Therefore, a finite subcovering {f −1 (Bg (Σi , ε)) :
i = 1, . . . , m} of f −1 (B̄) can be extracted from C, which provides the desired
finite covering {Bg (Σi , ε) : i = 1, . . . , m} of B̄, hence of R, with open g-balls
of radius ε.

Proof of Theorem 4.2. Assume first that sP,T < 1/2 and fix ε > 0. We
sc (s
will then prove that RP,T
P,T + ε) is g-bounded by showing that, for r >
0 large enough, it is included in the g-ball Bg (Ik , r). To do so, first note

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

47

that (4.1) entails
v
u k
uX
√
dg (Σ, Ik ) = t (log λi (Σ))2 ≤ k max(| log λ1 (Σ)|, | log λk (Σ)|)
i=1

√

k max(log λ1 (Σ), log λ−1
k (Σ)).
√
Therefore,
Σ
∈
/
B
(I
,
r)
implies
that
(i)
λ
(Σ)
>
exp(r/
k) or (ii) λk (Σ) <
g
1
k
√
exp(−r/ k) (or both). In case (i),
√


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) ≤ inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σu
(B.10)

=

u∈S k−1

≤ P [|v10 (Σ)(X − TP )| ≥

p
λ1 (Σ)]
√
≤ P [|v10 (Σ)(X − TP )| ≥ exp(r/2 k)]
√
≤ P [kX − TP k ≥ exp(r/2 k)],
which can be made smaller than ε (hence, smaller than sP,T + ε) for r large
enough. In case (ii), we have that, using the notation sK
P (·) from Lemma B.3,
√


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) ≤ inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ u0 Σu
u∈S k−1



1/2
≤ P |vk0 (Σ)(X − TP )| ≤ λk (Σ)
{TP }

≤ sP

1/2

{TP }

(λk (Σ)) ≤ sP

√
(exp(−r/2 k)),

which, in view of Lemma B.3(i), can be made smaller than sP,T +ε for r large
sc (α) is g-bounded, hence also
enough. We conclude that, for α > sP,T , RP,T
(Lemma B.6) totally g-bounded. Since it is also g-closed (which follows from
Theorem 4.1(ii)), it is g-compact (recall from Section 4 that, in a complete
metric space, any closed and totally bounded set is compact).
Finally, if sP,T ≥ 1/2, then, with u0 ∈ S k−1 such that P [|u00 (X − TP )| =
0] = sP,T (existence is guaranteed in Lemma
p 0 B.3(ii); take0 K = {TP } there),
sc
0
we have HDP,T (Σ) ≤ P [|u0 (X − TP )| ≥ u0 Σu0 ] ≤ P [|u0 (X − TP )| > 0] =
sc (α) is empty for any α > 1 − s
1 − sP,T , so that RP,T

P,T = αP,T .
sc (α
Proof of Theorem 4.3. By assumption, RP,T
P,T ) is non-empty, so
sc
that α∗P,T = supΣ∈Pk HDP,T (Σ) ≥ αP,T . If α∗P,T = αP,T , then the result holds since the maximal depth α∗P,T is achieved at any scatter masc (α
trix in the non-empty set RP,T
P,T ). Assume then that α∗P,T > αP,T .

48

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

sc (α
Fix δ > 0 such that α∗P,T − δ > αP,T , so that RP,T
∗P,T − δ) is gcompact (Theorem 4.2). For any positive integer n, it is possible to pick
sc (Σ ) ≥ α
a scatter matrix Σn with HDP,T
n
∗P,T − (δ/n). The g-compactness
sc
of RP,T (α∗P,T − δ) implies that there exists a subsequence (Σn` ) that gsc (α
converges in RP,T
∗P,T − δ), to Σ∗ say. For any ε ∈ (0, δ), all terms
sc (α
of (Σn` ) are eventually in the g-closed set RP,T
∗P,T − ε), so that its gsc
limit Σ∗ must also belong to RP,T (α∗P,T − ε). For any such ε, we thus have
sc (Σ ) ≤ α
sc
α∗P,T − ε ≤ HDP,T
∗
∗P,T , which proves that HDP,T (Σ∗ ) = α∗P,T . 

The proof of Theorem 4.4 requires the following preliminary result.
Lemma B.7. Fix Σ ∈ Pk with max(diag(Σ)) ≤ 1. Then maxs s0 Σ−1 s ≥ k
(where maxs is the maximum over s = (s1 , . . . , sk ) ∈ {−1, 1}k ), with equality
if and only if Σ = Ik .
Proof of Lemma B.7. We prove the result by induction. Clearly, the
result holds for k = 1. Assume then that the result holds for k. Writing
!


Σ−
v
s−
Σ=
and s =
,
sk+1
v 0 Σk+1,k+1
the classical formula for the inverse of a block partitioned matrix yields
s0 Σ−1 s = s0− Σ−1
− s− +

(B.11)

2
(s0− Σ−1
− v − sk+1 )

Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 Σ−1
− v

= s0− Σ−1
− s− + 1 +

2
0 −1
(s0− Σ−1
− v − sk+1 ) − (Σk+1,k+1 − v Σ− v)

Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 Σ−1
− v

·

By induction assumption, there exists s− such that
(B.12)

s0 Σ−1 s ≥ k + 1 +

2
0 −1
(s0− Σ−1
− v − sk+1 ) − (Σk+1,k+1 − v Σ− v)

Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 Σ−1
− v

·

Now, irrespective of s− , choosing sk+1 = −sign(s0− Σ−1
− v) yields
2
0 −1
(s0− Σ−1
− v − sk+1 ) − (Σk+1,k+1 − v Σ− v)
−1
2
0
0 −1
= (s0− Σ−1
− v) + 2|s− Σ− v| + v Σ− v + 1 − Σk+1,k+1 ≥ 0,

since Σk+1,k+1 ≤ 1. Jointly with (B.12), this provides maxs s0 Σ−1 s ≥ k + 1.

49

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

Now, assume that maxs s0 Σ−1 s = k + 1. We consider two cases. (a)
−1
0
maxs− s0− Σ−1
− s− > k. Pick an arbitrary s∗− such that s∗− Σ− s∗− > k. Then,
0
0
with s∗ = (s∗− , s∗,k+1 ) , we have
s0∗ Σ−1 s∗ > k + 1 +

2
0 −1
(s0∗− Σ−1
− v − s∗,k+1 ) − (Σk+1,k+1 − v Σ− v)

Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 Σ−1
− v

·

Choosing again s∗,k+1 = −sign(s0∗− Σ−1
− v) makes the third term of the righthand side non-negative, which implies that maxs s0 Σ−1 s > k + 1, a contradiction. (b) maxs− s0− Σ−1
− s− = k. By induction assumption, we must then
have Σ− = Ik . For any s = (s0− , sk+1 )0 , (B.11) thus yields
s0 Σ−1 s = s0− s− +

(s0− v − sk+1 )2
(s0− v − sk+1 )2
=
k
+
·
Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 v
Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 v

Since maxs s0 Σ−1 s = k + 1, we must have that
1 = max
s

P
(s0− v − sk+1 )2
(1 + k`=1 |v` |)2
c
=
=: ·
Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 v
Σk+1,k+1 − v 0 v
d

Since c ≥ 1 and d ≤ 1 (recall that Σk+1,k+1 ≤ 1), this imposes that c = d =
1, which leads to v = 0 and Σk+1,k+1 = 1. Jointly with Σ− = Ik , this shows
that we must have Σ = Ik+1 , which establishes the result.

√
Proof of Theorem 4.4. First note that, with Σ∗ = kIk , (2.7) yields




sc
HDP,T
(Σ∗ ) = 2 min Ψ k −1/4 − 21 , 1 − Ψ k 1/4 = π2 arctan k −1/4
√
and fix an arbitrary Σ ∈ Pk . If max(diag(Σ)) > k, then
(B.13)
p


sc
sc
HDP,T
(Σ) ≤ 2 1 − Ψ max(diag(Σ)) < 2 1 − Ψ k 1/4 = HDP,T
(Σ∗ ).
If max(diag(Σ)) ≤

√

k, then Lemma B.7 yields

max s0 Σ−1 s = k −1/2 max s0 (k −1/2 Σ)−1 s ≥ k 1/2 ,
s

s

so that
√


sc
(Σ) ≤ 2 Ψ 1/ max s0 Σ−1 s − 12
HDP,T
s

(B.14)



sc (Σ ).
≤ 2 Ψ k −1/4 − 21 = HDP,T
∗

50

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

sc (Σ ) ≥ HD sc (Σ) for any Σ ∈ P . Now, assume
We conclude that HDP,T
∗
k
P,T
√
sc
sc
that HDP,T (Σ) = HDP,T (Σ∗ ) for some Σ ∈ Pk . If max(diag(Σ)) > k,
sc (Σ) < HD sc (Σ ), as showed in (B.13). Thus we
we can only have HDP,T
∗
P,T
√
must have max(diag(Σ)) ≤ k, and by assumption, all inequalities in (B.14)
should be equalities. In view of Lemma B.7, this implies that k −1/2 Σ = Ik ,
which establishes the result.


B.4. Proofs from Sections 5 and 6.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. We start with the case θ0 = 0 and Σ0 = Ik ,
for which
√
√

 

min(P |u0 X| ≤ u0 Σu , P |u0 X| ≥ u0 Σu )
√
√
= min(P [|X1 | ≤ u0 Σu], P [|X1 | ≥ u0 Σu])
for any u ∈ S k−1 , so that (note that the affine equivariance of TP entails
that TP = 0)
sc
HDP,T
(Σ) =

inf
z∈Sp(Σ)

min(P [X12 ≤ z], P [X12 ≥ z])

sc
≤ min(P [X12 ≤ 1], P [X12 ≥ 1]) = HDP,T
(Ik ),

where the equality holds if and only if Sp(Σ) ⊂ IMSD [X1 ]. The result for a
general location θ0 and scatter Σ0 readily follows from affine invariance and
the identity Sp(AB) = Sp(BA). (ii) By definition, if IMSD [Z1 ] is a singleton,
sc (Σ) = HD sc (Σ ),
then this singleton must be {1}. Consequently, if HDP,T
0
P,T
−1
Σ)
=
1.
This
then Part (i) of the result entails that λk (Σ0 Σ) = λ1 (Σ−1
0
Σ
=
I
,
which
establishes
the
result.

implies that Σ−1
k
0
We turn to the proofs of Theorems 5.2 and 6.1, that require the following
preliminary results for the elliptical case (Lemma B.8) and for the independent Cauchy case (Lemma B.9).
1/2

−1/2

Lemma B.8. For any Σa , Σb ∈ Pk and t ∈ [0, 1], let Σ̃t := Σa Σa Σb
−1/2 t 1/2
−1 −1
∗
Σa
Σa and Σ∗t := ((1 − t)Σ−1
a + tΣb ) . Then (i) λ1 (Σt ) ≤ λ1 (Σ̃t ) ≤
max(λ1 (Σa ), λ1 (Σb )) and (ii) λk (Σ̃t ) ≥ λk (Σ∗t ) ≥ min(λk (Σa ), λk (Σb )).
Proof of Lemma B.8. (i) With the usual order on positive semidefinite
matrices (A ≤ B iff B −A is positive semidefinite), the (weighted) harmonicgeometric-arithmetic inequality (see, e.g., Lemma 2.1(vii) in Lawson and

51

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

Lim, 2013)
Σ∗t ≤ Σ̃t ≤ Σt := (1 − t)Σa + tΣb

(B.15)

holds for any t ∈ [0, 1]. This implies that
λ1 (Σ∗t ) ≤ λ1 (Σ̃t ) ≤ λ1 (Σt ).

(B.16)

Indeed, if, e.g., the second inequality in (B.16) does not hold (the argument
for the first inequality is strictly the same), then, denoting as ṽ1t an arbitrary
0 Σ̃ ṽ = λ (Σ̃ ) > λ (Σ ) ≥
eigenvector associated with λ1 (Σ̃t ), we have ṽ1t
t 1t
1
t
1
t
0 Σ ṽ , which contradicts (B.15). Hence, (B.16) holds and provides
ṽ1t
t 1t
λ1 (Σ∗t ) ≤ λ1 (Σ̃t ) ≤ max u0 ((1 − t)Σa + tΣb )u
u∈S d−1

≤ (1 − t) max u0 Σa u + t max u0 Σb u
u∈S d−1

u∈S d−1

= (1 − t)λ1 (Σa ) + tλ1 (Σb )
≤ max(λ1 (Σa ), λ1 (Σb )),
as was to be showed. (ii) Proceeding in a similar way as above, it is readily
showed that (B.15) implies that λk (Σ̃t ) ≥ λk (Σ∗t ). Using this, we obtain
∗ −1
λk (Σ̃t ) ≥ λk (Σ∗t ) = λ−1
1 ((Σt ) )

=



−1
−1 
−1
−1
−1
)
)u
≥
(1
−
t)λ
(Σ
)
+
tλ
(Σ
+
tΣ
max u0 ((1 − t)Σ−1
1
1
a
a
b
b

u∈S d−1

−1

−1
(Σ
)
(Σ
)
+
tλ
≥ min(λk (Σa ), λk (Σb )),
= (1 − t)λ−1
a
b
k
k
since any weighted harmonic mean of two real numbers is a convex linear
combination of these.

1/2

−1/2

Lemma B.9. For any Σa , Σb ∈ Pk and t ∈ [0, 1], let Σ̃t := Σa Σa Σb
−1/2 t 1/2
−1 −1
Σa
Σa and Σ∗t := ((1 − t)Σ−1
a + tΣb ) . Then,
(B.17)
max(diag(Σ∗t )) ≤ max(diag(Σ̃t )) ≤ max(max(diag(Σa )), max(diag(Σb )))
and
(B.18)

0
∗ −1
0 −1
0 −1
max s0 Σ̃−1
t s ≤ max s (Σt ) s ≤ max max s Σa s, max s Σb s
s

s

s



s

{−1, 1}k ),

(where maxs is the maximum over s = (s1 , . . . , sk ) ∈
so that both
0
−1
the mappings Σ 7→ max(diag(Σ)) and Σ 7→ maxs s Σ s are geodesic and
harmonic quasi-convex.

52

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

Proof of Lemma B.9. The result in (B.17) readily follows from the fact
that the weighted harmonic-geometric-arithmetic inequality Σ∗t ≤ Σ̃t ≤ (1 −
t)Σa +tΣb yields (Σ∗t )`` ≤ (Σ̃t )`` ≤ (1−t)(Σa )`` +t(Σb )`` ≤ max((Σa )`` , (Σb )`` )
for any ` = 1, . . . , k. Turning to (B.18), the harmonic-geometric inequality
implies
that
Σ̃−1
≤
(Σ∗t )−1 ,
which
readily
yields
t
−1
0
0
∗
−1
maxs s Σ̃t s ≤ maxs s (Σt ) s. Consequently, it only remains to prove the
second inequality in (B.18). To do so, choose an arbitrary s∗ such that
maxs s0 (Σ∗t )−1 s = s0∗ (Σ∗t )−1 s∗ . Then

−1
max s0 (Σ∗t )−1 s = s0∗ (Σ∗t )−1 s∗ = s0∗ (1 − t)Σ−1
s∗
a + tΣb
s

0 −1
≤ (1 − t) max s0 Σ−1
a s + t max s Σb s
s

s


0 −1
≤ max max s0 Σ−1
a s, max s Σb s ,

(B.19)

s

s

which establishes the result.



We can now prove Theorems 5.2 and 6.1.
Proof of Theorem 5.2. (i) We start by considering the case where P
is an elliptical probability measure over Rk with location θ0 and scatter Σ0 ,
where we first prove the result for θ0 = 0 and Σ0 = Ik . Then we have
p
p

 

sc
HDP,T
(Σ̃t ) = inf min P |u0 X| ≤ u0 Σ̃t u , P |u0 X| ≥ u0 Σ̃t u
u∈S k−1

= min
(B.20)



inf

u∈S k−1

P [|X1 | ≤

p
u0 Σ̃t u], inf

u∈S k−1

1/2

P [|X1 | ≥


p
u0 Σ̃t u]

1/2

= min(P [|X1 | ≤ λk (Σ̃t )], P [|X1 | ≥ λ1 (Σ̃t )]).

Since Lemma B.8 entails that
1/2

1/2

1/2

P [|X1 | ≤ λk (Σ̃t )] ≥ P [|X1 | ≤ min(λk (Σa ), λk (Σb ))]
1/2

1/2

= min(P [|X1 | ≤ λk (Σa )], P [|X1 | ≤ λk (Σb )])
sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb ))

and
1/2

1/2

1/2

P [|X1 | ≥ λ1 (Σ̃t )] ≥ P [|X1 | ≥ max(λ1 (Σa ), λ1 (Σb ))]
1/2

1/2

= min(P [|X1 | ≥ λ1 (Σa )], P [|X1 | ≥ λ1 (Σb )])
sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )),

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

53

the result for θ0 = 0 and Σ0 = Ik follows from (B.20).
We now prove the result in the elliptical case with arbitrary values of θ0
−1/2
and Σ0 . To this end, let A = Σ0
and note that the square roots (in Pk ) of
1/2
1/2
1/2
0
0
Υa := AΣa A and Υb := AΣb A are of the form Υa = AΣa Oa and Υb =
1/2
AΣb Ob , for some k × k orthogonal matrices Oa , Ob . Consequently,
−1/2
Υ̃t := AΣ̃t A0 = AΣ1/2
Σb Σa−1/2 )t Σa1/2 A0
a (Σa
0
−1/2
1/2
−1/2
= Υ1/2
Υb Υa−1/2 Oa0 )t Oa Υ1/2
Υb Υ−1/2
)t Υa1/2
a Oa (Oa Υa
a = Υa (Υa
a

describes a geodesic path from Υa to Υb . Since the result holds at P0 =
PA,−Aθ0 (where the notation PA,b was defined on page 4, affine invariance
then entails that
sc
HDP,T
(Σ̃t ) = HDPsc0 ,T (Υ̃t ) ≥ min(HDPsc0 ,T (Υa ), HDPsc0 ,T (Υb ))
sc
sc
= min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )),

as was to be showed.
We now turn to the case where the probability measure P over Rk has
independent Cauchy marginals. Fix Σa , Σb ∈ Pk and consider the geodesic
path Σ̃t , t ∈ [0, 1], from Σa to Σb . Recall that
√
p


sc
HDP,T
(Σ) = 2 min Ψ 1/ max s0 Σ−1 s − 21 , 1 − Ψ max(diag(Σ)) ,
s

where Ψ stands for the Cauchy cumulative distribution function; see (2.7).
Lemma B.9 readily entails that
q

2 − 2Ψ max(diag(Σ̃t ))
p
p


≥ min 2 − 2Ψ max(diag(Σa )) , 2 − 2Ψ max(diag(Σb ))
sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )).

(B.21)

0 −1
0 −1
Lemma B.9 also provides maxs s0 Σ̃−1
t s ≤ max(maxs s Σa s, maxs s Σb s),
which rewrites
1/2 ≥ min(1/ max (s0 Σ−1 s)1/2 , 1/ max (s0 Σ−1 s)1/2 ).
1/ max (s0 Σ̃−1
s
s
a
t s)
b
s

This implies that

1/2 − 1
2Ψ 1/ max (s0 Σ̃−1
t s)
s




1/2 − 1, 2Ψ 1/ max (s0 Σ−1 s)1/2 − 1
≥ min 2Ψ 1/ max (s0 Σ−1
s
a s)
b
s

(B.22)

sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )).

54

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

sc (Σ̃ ) ≥ min(HD sc (Σ ),
From (B.21)-(B.22), it readily follows that HDP,T
t
a
P,T
sc
HDP,T (Σb )), which concludes the proof of Part (i).
(ii) Let then P be an arbitrary probability measure over Rk satisfying
sc (α), we then have HD sc (Σ̃ ) ≥
Part (i) of the result. For any Σa , Σb ∈ RP,T
t
P,T
sc (Σ ), HD sc (Σ )) ≥ α, so that Σ̃ ∈ Rsc (α).
min(HDP,T

a
t
b
P,T
P,T

Proof of Theorem 6.1. In view of the remark given right before the
statement of the theorem, it is sufficient to show that, at the probability
sc (Σ) is harmonic quasi-concave. The
measures P considered, Σ 7→ HDP,T
proof is then entirely similar to the proof of Theorem 5.2. In the elliptical
case, the affine-invariance argument is based on the identity Υ∗t := AΣ∗t A0 =
−1 −1
0
0
((1 − t)Υ−1

a + tΥb ) , with Υa := AΣa A and Υb := AΣb A .
B.5. Proofs from Section 7.
sh,S
(V ) >
Proof of Theorem 7.1. We may restrict to the case where HDP,T
sh,S
αP,T (indeed, the assumptions ensure that HDP,T
(V ) ≥ αP,T and that the
sh,S
(V ) = αP,T ). For any α > αP,T , consider then Iα :=
result holds if HDP,T
+
2
sc (α)} = {σ 2 ∈ R+ : HD sc (σ 2 V ) ≥ α}.
Iα,P,T (V ) := {σ ∈ R0 : σ 2 V ∈ RP,T
0
P,T
sc
The convexity of RP,T (α) (Theorem 3.3(ii)) implies that Iα is an interval.
sc (α) is g-bounded, which imSince α > αP,T , Theorem 4.2 shows that RP,T
plies there exist ηα > 0 and Mα > ηα such that Iα ⊂ [ηα , Mα ]. Since, moresc (σ 2 V ) is upper semicontinuous,
over, Theorem 3.1 implies that σ 2 7→ HDP,T
Iα is also closed, hence (still for α > αP,T ) compact.
sh,S
(V )−δ > αP,T . For any n, pick then σn2 in
Now, fix δ > 0 such that HDP,T
the (non-empty) interval IHDsh,S (V )−(δ/n) . The resulting sequence (σn2 ) is in
P,T

the compact set IHDsh,S (V )−δ , hence admits a subsequence (σn2 ` ) converging
P,T

2
2
in R+
0 , to σV , say. Fix then an arbitrary ε ∈ (0, δ). For ` large enough, all σn`
belong to the closed set IHDsh,S (V )−ε , so that σV2 also belongs to IHDsh,S (V )−ε .
P,T

P,T

sh,S
sc (σ 2 V ) ≤ HD sh,S (V ). Since ε can
This shows that HDP,T
(V ) − ε ≤ HDP,T
V
P,T
be taken arbitrarily small, the result is proved.


Proof of Theorem 7.2. From Theorem 2.1, we readily obtain
HDPsh,S
(AVA0 /S(AVA0 )) = sup HDPscA,b ,T (σ 2 AVA0 /S(AVA0 ))
A,b ,T
σ 2 >0

sh,S
sc
= sup HDPscA,b ,T (σ 2 AVA0 ) = sup HDP,T
(σ 2 V ) = HDP,T
(V ),
σ 2 >0

which establishes the result.

σ 2 >0



SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

55

Proof of Theorem 7.3. Consider arbitrary probability measures P, Q
sh,S
on Rk . Fix V ∈ PkS and assume (without loss of generality) that HDP,T
(V ) ≤
sh,S
sh,S
HDQ,T
(V ). Then, for any ε > 0, there exists σε2 > 0 such that HDQ,T
(V ) ≤
sc
2
HDQ,T (σε V ) + ε, so that
sh,S
sh,S
sh,S
sh,S
|HDP,T
(V ) − HDQ,T
(V )| = HDQ,T
(V ) − HDP,T
(V )
sc
sc
sc
sc
(Σ) − HDQ,T
(Σ)| + ε.
≤ HDQ,T
(σε2 V ) + ε − HDP,T
(σε2 V ) ≤ sup |HDP,T
Σ∈Pk

Since this holds for any ε > 0 and since V is arbitrary, we have that
sh,S
sh,S
sc
sc
sup |HDP,T
(V ) − HDQ,T
(V )| ≤ sup |HDQ,T
(Σ) − HDP,T
(Σ)|.
Σ∈Pk

V ∈PkS

The result then follows from Theorem 2.2.



sh,S
Proof of Theorem 7.4. (i) Fix a shape matrix V0 ∈ RP,T
(αP,T ) and asS
sume, ad absurdum, that there exists a sequence (Vn ) in Pk that g-converges
(resp., F -converges) to V0 and such that
sh,S
sh,S
(V0 ).
(Vn ) > HDP,T
lim sup HDP,T
n→∞

Extracting a subsequence if necessary, we can fix ε > 0 small enough to have
sh,S
sh,S
(Vn ) for any n. Fix then, for any n, σn2 > 0 such
(V0 ) + ε < HDP,T
HDP,T
sc (σ 2 V ) > HD sh,S (V ) − ε/2, which yields
that HDP,T
n
n n
P,T

(B.23)

sh,S
sc
(V0 ) + ε/2 ≥ αP,T + ε/2.
HDP,T
(σn2 Vn ) > HDP,T

Now, we can assume without loss of generality that Vn belongs to a neighborhood of V0 that is g-compact in PkS (P ). Since (B.23) implies that σn2 Vn
belongs, for any n, to the g-bounded (Theorem 4.2) scatter depth region
sc (α
2
RP,T
P,T + ε/2), the sequence (σn ) then stays away from 0 and ∞ (that is,
the σn2 ’s belong to a common compact set of R+
0 ). Consequently, there ex2
2
ists a subsequence (σn` ) such that (σn` Vn` ) g-converges (resp., F -converges)
to σ02 V0 , say. In view of (B.23), we therefore found ε > 0 such that, for any `,
sh,S 2
sc
HDP,T
(σn2 ` Vn` ) > HDP,T
(σ0 V0 ) + ε/2,

where (σn2 ` Vn` ) g-converges (resp., F -converges) to σ02 V0 , which contradicts
the scatter depth upper semicontinuity result in Theorem 4.1 (resp., in Thesh (α) is the inverse
orem 3.1). (ii) The result follows from the fact that RP,T

56

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

image of [α, +∞) by the upper F - and g-semicontinuous function V 7→
sh,S
HDP,T
(V ). (iii) Since the supremum of lower semicontinuous functions is
a lower semicontinuous function, Theorems 3.1 and 4.1(iii) yield that V 7→
sh,S
HDP,T
(V ) is lower-semi continuous. The result then follows from Part (i)
sh,S
and the fact that the smoothness of P at TP implies that RP,T
(αP,T ) =
sh,S
RP,T
(0) = PkS .



The proof of Theorem 7.5 requires the following lemma.
Lemma B.10. Let S be a scale functional, that is a mapping from Pk
to R+
0 that satisfies the properties (i)-(iii) on page 20. Then, λk (V ) ≤ 1 ≤
λ1 (V ) for any V ∈ PkS .
Proof of Lemma B.10. (a) Factorize V into V = O diag(λ1 (V ), . . . ,
λk (V ))O0 , where O is a k × k orthogonal matrix. Then, since λk (V )Ik =
O diag(λk (V ), . . . , λk (V ))O0 ≤ V ≤ O diag(λ1 (V ), . . . , λ1 (V ))O0 = λ1 (V )Ik
(where A ≤ B still means that B −A is positive semidefinite), the properties
of a scale functional yield λk (V ) = S(λk (V )Ik ) ≤ S(V ) ≤ S(λ1 (V )Ik ) =
λ1 (V ).

Proof of Theorem 7.5. We start with the proof of the result for sP,T <
sh,S
(sP,T +ε)
1/2 and g-boundedness. We fix ε > 0 and intend to prove that RP,T
is g-bounded by showing that, for r > 0 large enough, it is included in the
g-ball Bg (Ik , r). To do so, fix a shape matrix V (∈ PkS ) that does not belong
to Bg (Ik , r) (r √
is to be chosen later). In view
√ of (B.10), we then have (i)
λ1 (V ) > exp(r/ k) or (ii) λk (V ) < exp(−r/ k) (or both).
We start with case (i). Fix (so far, arbitrarily) σ02 > 0. Then for any σ 2 ∈
(0, σ02 ], Lemma B.10 entails that (denoting by vk (V ) an arbitrary unit vector
associated with λk (V ))
√


sc
HDP,T
(σ 2 V ) ≤ inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ σ u0 V u
u∈S k−1



1/2
≤ P |vk0 (V )(X − TP )| ≤ σλk (V )
(B.24)

{TP }

≤ P [|vk0 (V )(X − TP )| ≤ σ0 ] ≤ sP

(σ0 ),

where we used the notation sK
P (·) introduced in Lemma B.3. By using this
{T }
{T }
2
lemma, pick then σ0 > 0 such that sP P (σ0 ) < sP P + (ε/2) = sP,T + (ε/2).
Denoting by v1 (V ) an arbitrary unit vector associated with λ1 (V ), we then

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

57

have that, for any σ 2 ∈ [σ02 , ∞),
sc
HDP,T
(σ 2 V ) ≤

(B.25)

inf

u∈S k−1

√


P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ σ u0 V u



1/2
≤ P |v10 (V )(X − TP )| ≥ σλ1 (V )
√ 

≤ P |v10 (V )(X − TP )| ≥ σ0 exp(r/2 k)
√ 

≤ P kX − TP k ≥ σ0 exp(r/2 k) ,

which, for r large enough, can be made smaller than ε/2 (hence, smaller
than sP,T + (ε/2)). For r large enough, thus, (B.24)-(B.25) guarantee that
sh,S
sc (σ 2 V ) < s
HDP,T
(V ) = supσ2 >0 HDP,T
P,T + ε, as was to be showed.
We then turn to case (ii). By picking σ0 large enough, we have that, for
any σ 2 ∈ [σ02 , ∞),
√


sc
HDP,T
(σ 2 V ) ≤ inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≥ σ u0 V u
u∈S k−1

(B.26)



1/2
≤ P |v10 (V )(X − TP )| ≥ σλ1 (V )


≤ P |v10 (V )(X − TP )| ≥ σ0


≤ P kX − TP k ≥ σ0 < ε/2,

where we used Lemma B.10. For any σ 2 ∈ (0, σ02 ], we then have
√


sc
HDP,T
(σ 2 V ) ≤ inf P |u0 (X − TP )| ≤ σ u0 V u
u∈S k−1



1/2
≤ P |vk0 (V )(X − TP )| ≤ σλk (V )

(B.27)

√
≤ P [|vk0 (V )(X − TP )| ≤ σ0 exp(−r/2 k)]
√
{T }
≤ sP P (σ0 exp(−r/2 k) < sP,T + (ε/2),

for r large enough. Thus, for r large enough, (B.26)-(B.27) still yield that
sh,S
sc (σ 2 V ) < s
HDP,T
(V ) = supσ2 >0 HDP,T
P,T + ε, as was to be showed. We
sh,S
thus conclude that, for α > sP,T , RP,T
(α) is g-bounded (its g-compacity
then follows from the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 4.2).
The proof for F -boundedness (still for sP < 1/2) follows along the same
lines and is actually simpler since only one of both cases (i)-(ii) above is
to be considered. Recall indeed that, as seen in the proof of Theorem 3.2,
V ∈
/ BF (Ik , r) implies that λ1 (V ) > (r − 1)/k 1/2 , so that the same reasoning
as in case (i) above allows to show that for any ε > 0, there exists r = r(ε)

58

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

sh,S
such that V ∈
/ B(Ik , r) implies HDP,T
(V ) < sP,T + ε. This establishes
sh,S
that RP,T
(α) is F -bounded for α > sP,T .
Finally, if sP,T ≥ 1/2, then, with u0 ∈ S k−1 such that P [|u00 (X − TP )| =
0] = sP,T (existence is guaranteed in Lemma
K = {TP }), we
p 0 B.3(ii), with
sc
0
2
0
have HDP,T (σ V ) ≤ P [|u0 (X − TP )| ≥ σ u0 V u0 ] ≤ P [|u0 (X − TP )| > 0] =
sh,S
sh,S
1 − sP,T for any σ 2 > 0, so that HDP,T
(V ) ≤ 1 − sP,T . Therefore, RP,T
(α)
is empty for any α > 1 − sP,T = αP,T .


Proof of Theorem 7.6. The proof follows along the exact same lines
as that of Theorem 4.3, hence is not reported here.

Proof of Theorem 7.7. (i) For any V ∈ PkS , Theorem 5.1(i) readily imsh,S
sc (σ 2 V ) ≤ HD sc (Σ ). Since HD sc (Σ )
plies that HDP,T
(V ) = supσ2 >0 HDP,T
0
0
P,T
P,T
sc (S(Σ )V ) ≤ HD sh,S (V ), the result follows. (ii) Before proceed= HDP,T
0
0 0
P,T
ing, note that since P is an elliptical probability measure with location θ0 ,
the affine-equivariance of T implies that TP = θ0 . Ellipticity further entails that sP,T = P [{θ0 }]. Moreover, we must have sP,T < 1/2 (otherwise,
P [|Z1 | = 0] ≥ P [{θ0 }] = sP,T ≥ 1/2, so that 0 ∈ IMSD [Z1 ], a contradiction). Now, assume, ad absurdum, that there exists V ∈ PkS \ {V0 }
sh,S
sh,S
sh,S
sc (Σ ) ≥ 1/2,
with HDP,T
(V ) = HDP,T
(V0 ). Since HDP,T
(V0 ) = HDP,T
0
sh,S
(V ) ≥ 1/2. Since αP,T = sP,T < 1/2, there exwe must have HDP,T
2
sc (σ 2 V ) ≥ s . Therefore, Theorem 7.1 ensures
ists σ > 0 such that HDP,T
P
sh,S
sc (σ 2 V ) for some σ 2 > 0. We therefore have
(V ) = HDP,T
that HDP,T
V
V
sh,S
sh,S
sc
sc
sc
(V0 ) = HDP,T
(Σ0 ) = HDP,T
(S(Σ0 )V0 ).
(V ) = HDP,T
HDP,T
(σV2 V ) = HDP,T
−1/2

Theorem 5.1(ii) then yields that Sp((S(Σ0 ))−1/2 σV V0
V 1/2 ) ⊂ IMSD [Z1 ].
−1/2 1/2
Since, by assumption, IMSD [Z1 ] = {1}, V0
V
must be proportional to
the identity matrix, which implies that V = V0 .

Proof of Theorem 7.8. (i) Consider the scale functional Str and fix ε > 0.
By definition, there exist positive real numbers σa2 and σb2 such that
sh,Str
sh,Str
sc
sc
HDP,T
(σa2 Va ) ≥ HDP,T
(Va ) − ε and HDP,T
(σb2 Vb ) ≥ HDP,T
(Vb ) − ε.

Consider then the linear path Σt = (1 − t)Σa + tΣb from Σa = σa2 Va to Σb =
σb2 Vb . Letting h(t) = tσb2 /((1 − t)σa2 + tσb2 ), the Str -shape matrix associated

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

59

with Σt is
k
k
Σt =
((1 − t)σa2 Va + tσb2 Vb )
2
tr[Σt ]
tr[(1 − t)σa Va + tσb2 Vb ]
=

k
((1 − h(t))Va + h(t)Vb ) = Vh(t) .
tr[(1 − h(t))Va + h(t)Vb ]

Since h : [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a one-to-one mapping, Theorem 3.3 yields that
sh,Str
sh,Str
HDP,T
(Vt , P ) = HDP,T



k
tr[Σh−1 (t) ]

Σh−1 (t) , P



sc
≥ HDP,T
(Σh−1 (t) )

sh,Str
sh,Str
sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Va ), HDP,T
(Vb )) − ε,
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )) ≥ min(HDP,T

for any t ∈ [0, 1]. Since this holds for any ε > 0, Part (i) of the result is proved
for S = Str . The proof for S = S11 is along the exact same lines, hence is
omitted. As for Part (ii), it strictly follows like Part (ii) of Theorem 5.2. 
Proof of Theorem 7.9. (i) Fix ε > 0. By definition, there exist σa2 > 0
and σb2 > 0 such that
sh,Sdet
sh,Sdet
sc
sc
(Vb ) − ε.
(Va ) − ε and HDP,T
(σb2 Vb ) ≥ HDP,T
HDP,T
(σa2 Va ) ≥ HDP,T
1/2
−1/2
−1/2 t 1/2
Consider then the geodesic path Σ̃t = Σa Σa Σb Σa
Σa from Σa =
1−t
2
2
σa Va to Σb = σb Vb . Then, since det Σ̃t = (det Σa ) (det Σb )t , it is easy
to check that the Sdet -shape matrix associated with Σ̃t is (det Σ̃t )−1/k Σ̃t =
1/2
−1/2
−1/2 t 1/2
Va Va
Vb Va
Va =: Ṽt . Therefore, using Theorem 5.2, we obtain
sh,Sdet
sc
sc
HDP,T
(Ṽt ) ≥ HDP,T
((det Σ̃t )1/k Ṽt ) = HDP,T
(Σ̃t )
sh,Sdet
sh,Sdet
sc
sc
(Vb )) − ε.
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )) ≥ min(HDP,T
(Va ), HDP,T

Part (i) of the result follows since ε > 0 is arbitrary above. As for Part (ii),
it is obtained again as in Part (ii) of Theorem 5.2.

Proof of Theorem 7.10. (i) Fix ε > 0. By definition, there exist
positive real numbers σa2 and σb2 such that
sh,S ∗

sh,S ∗

sc
sc
HDP,T
(σa2 Va ) ≥ HDP,T tr (Va ) − ε and HDP,T
(σb2 Vb ) ≥ HDP,T tr (Vb ) − ε.
−1 −1
Consider then the harmonic path Σ∗t = ((1−t)Σ−1
from Σa = σa2 Va
a +tΣb )
−2
−2
−2
∗ -shape
to Σb = σb Vb . Then, letting h(t) = tσb /((1 − t)σa−2 + tσb ), the Str

60

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

matrix associated with Σ∗t is
tr[(Σ∗t )−1 ] ∗
Σt = ((1 − t)σa−2 + tσb−2 ) ((1 − t)σa−2 Va−1 + tσb−2 Vb−1 )−1
k
−1
∗
.
= (1 − h(t))Va−1 + h(t)Vb−1
=: Vh(t)
Since h : [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a one-to-one mapping, we obtain that, for any t ∈
[0, 1],
 tr[(Σ∗

−1
∗
∗
h−1 (t) ) ] ∗
sh,Str
sh,Str
∗
sc
HDP,T (Vt ) = HDP,T
(Σ∗h−1 (t) )
Σh−1 (t) ≥ HDP,T
k
sh,S ∗

sh,S ∗

sc
sc
≥ min(HDP,T
(Σa ), HDP,T
(Σb )) ≥ min(HDP,T tr (Va ), HDP,T tr (Vb )) − ε.

Since this holds for any ε > 0, Part (i) of the result is proved. Part (ii)
strictly follows like Part (ii) of Theorem 5.2.

REFERENCES
Arcones, M. A. and Giné, E. (1993). Limit theorems for U -processes. Ann. Probab. 21
1494–1542.
Berger, M. (2003). A Panoramic View of Riemannian Geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg.
Bhatia, R. (2007). Positive definite matrices. Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Bhatia, R. and Holbrook, J. (2006). Riemannian geometry and matrix geometric
means. Linear Algebra Appl. 413 594–618.
Cardot, H., Cénac, P. and Godichon-Baggioni, A. (2017). Online estimation of the
geometric median in Hilbert spaces : Non asymptotic confidence balls. Ann. Statist. 45
591–614.
Cartan, E. (1929). Groupes simples clos et ouverts et géometrie riemannienne. J. Math.
Pures Appl. 8 1–33.
Chakraborty, A. and Chaudhuri, P. (2014). The spatial distribution in infinite dimensional spaces and related quantiles and depths. Ann. Statist. 42 1203–1231.
Chaudhuri, P. (1996). On a geometric notion of quantiles for multivariate data. J. Amer.
Statist. Assoc. 91 862–872.
Chen, M., Gao, C. and Ren, Z. (2017). Robust covariance and scatter matrix estimation
under Huber’s contamination model. Ann. Statist., to appear.
Claeskens, G., Hubert, M., Slaets, L. and Vakili, K. (2014). Multivariate functional
halfspace depth. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 109 411–423.
Cuevas, A., Febrero, M. and Fraiman, R. (2007). Robust estimation and classification
for functional data via projection-based depth notions. Comput. Statist. 22 481–496.
Dang, X. and Serfling, R. J. (2010). Nonparametric depth-based multivariate outlier
identifiers, and masking robustness properties. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 140 198–
213.
Donoho, D. L. and Gasko, M. (1992). Breakdown properties of location estimates based
on halfspace depth and projected outlyingness. Ann. Statist. 20 1803–1827.

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

61

Dümbgen, L. and Tyler, D. E. (2016). Geodesic convexity and regularized scatter estimators. ArXiv:1607.05455v2.
Fan, Y., Jin, J. and Yao, Z. (2013). Optimal classification in sparse Gaussian graphic
model. Ann. Statist. 41 2537–2571.
Fan, Y. and Lv, J. (2016). Innovated scalable efficient estimation in ultra-large gaussian
graphical models. Ann. Statist. 44 2098–2126.
Hall, P. and Jin, J. (2010). Innovated higher criticism for detecting sparse signals in
correlated noise. Ann. Statist. 38 1686–1732.
Hallin, M., Paindaveine, D. and Šiman, M. (2010). Multivariate quantiles and multipleoutput regression quantiles: From L1 optimization to halfspace depth. Ann. Statist. 38
635-669.
He, Y. and Einmahl, J. H. J. (2017). Estimation of extreme depth-based quantile regions.
J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 79 449–461.
Hubert, M., Rousseeuw, P. J. and Segaert, P. (2015). Multivariate functional outlier
detection. Stat. Methods Appl. 24 177–202.
Ilmonen, P. and Paindaveine, D. (2011). Semiparametrically efficient inference based on
signed ranks in symmetric independent component models. Ann. Statist. 39 2448–2476.
Kosorok, M. R. (2008). Introduction to Empirical Processes and Semiparametric Inference. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York.
Lawson, J. and Lim, Y. (2013). Weighted means and Karcher equations of positive operators. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 15626–15632.
Liu, R. Y. (1990). On a notion of data depth based on random simplices. Ann. Statist.
18 405–414.
Liu, R. Y., Parelius, J. M. and Singh, K. (1999). Multivariate analysis by data depth:
descriptive statistics, graphics and inference. Ann. Statist. 27 783–858.
López-Pintado, S. and Romo, J. (2009). On the concept of depth for functional data.
J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 104 718–734.
Mizera, I. (2002). On depth and deep points: a calculus. Ann. Statist. 30 1681–1736.
Mizera, I. and Müller, C. H. (2004). Location-scale depth. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 99
949–989.
Nieto-Reyes, A. and Battey, H. (2016). A topologically valid definition of depth for
functional data. Statist. Sci. 31 61–79.
Paindaveine, D. and Van Bever, G. (2014). Inference on the shape of elliptical distributions based on the MCD. J. Multivariate Anal. 129 125-144.
Paindaveine, D. and Van Bever, G. (2015). Nonparametrically consistent depth-based
classifiers. Bernoulli 21 62–82.
Rousseeuw, P. J. and Hubert, M. (1999). Regression depth. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.
94 388–433.
Rousseeuw, P. J. and Ruts, I. (1999). The depth function of a population distribution.
Metrika 49 213–244.
Rousseeuw, P. J. and Struyf, A. (2004). Characterizing angular symmetry and regression symmetry. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 122 161–173.
Serfling, R. J. (2004). Some perspectives on location and scale depth functions. J. Amer.
Statist. Assoc. 99 970–973.
Serfling, R. (2010). Equivariance and invariance properties of multivariate quantile and
related functions, and the role of standardization. J. Nonparametr. Stat. 22 915–926.
Tukey, J. W. (1975). Mathematics and the picturing of data. In Proceedings of the
International Congress of Mathematicians (Vancouver, B. C., 1974), Vol. 2 523–531.
Canad. Math. Congress, Montreal, Que.
Van der Vaart, A. W. and Wellner, J. A. (1996). Weak Convergence and Empirical

62

D. PAINDAVEINE AND G. VAN BEVER

Processes. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York.
Vardi, Y. and Zhang, C.-H. (2000). The multivariate L1 -median and associated data
depth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 1423–1426.
Zhang, J. (2002). Some extensions of Tukey’s depth function. J. Multivariate Anal. 82
134–165.
Zuo, Y. (2003). Projection-based depth functions and associated medians. Ann. Statist.
31 1460–1490.
Zuo, Y. and Serfling, R. (2000). General notions of statistical depth function. Ann.
Statist. 28 461–482.
Université libre de Bruxelles
ECARES and Département de Mathématique
Avenue Roosevelt, 50, ECARES, CP114/04
B-1050, Brussels
Belgium
E-mail: dpaindav@ulb.ac.be
URL: http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/˜dpaindav

Université libre de Bruxelles
ECARES, Avenue Roosevelt, 50, CP114/04
B-1050, Brussels
Belgium
E-mail: gvbever@ulb.ac.be
URL: https://sites.google.com/site/germainvanbever

SCATTER, CONCENTRATION AND SHAPE HALFSPACE DEPTHS

63

sh,S
∗
Fig 7. Contour plots of (V11 , V12 ) 7→ HDP,T
(VS ), for Str (top), Sdet (middle) and Str
sh,S
(bottom), where HDP,T (VS ) is the shape halfspace depth, with respect to P , of the Sshape VS (∈ P2S ) with upper-left entry V11 and upper-right entry V12 , for an arbitrary affineequivariant location functional T . The probability measures P considered are those associ-
ated (i) with the bivariate normal distribution with location zero and scatter ΣC = 31 11
1/2
(left) and (ii) with the distribution of ΣC Z, where Z has mutually independent Cauchy
marginals (right). In each case, the (“true”) S-shape associated with ΣC is marked in red
and those associated with ΣA and ΣB from Figure 3 are marked in black. Linear paths
(top), geodesic paths (middle) and harmonic paths (bottom) between these three shapes are
drawn.

