Versions of Kernel-Type Regression Estimators
核型回归估计量的不同形式及其关系AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究通用非参数回归平滑方法,未给出对应所列经济金融细分领域的模型或应用证据。
核型回归估计量的不同形式及其关系AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We explore the aims of, and relationships between, various kernel-type regression estimators. To do so, we identify two general types of (direct) kernel estimators differing in their treatment of the nuisance density function associated with regressor variable design. We look at the well-known Gasser-Müller, Nadaraya-Watson, and Priestley-Chao methods in this light. In the random design case, none of these methods is totally adequate, and we mention a novel (direct) kernel method with appropriate properties. Disadvantages of even the latter idea are remedied by kernel-weighted local linear fitting, a well-known technique that is currently enjoying renewed popularity. We see how to fit this approach into our general framework, and hence form a unified understanding of how these kernel-type smoothers interrelate. Though the mission of this article is unificatory (and even pedagogical), the desire for better understanding of superficially different approaches is motivated by the need to improve practical estimators. In the end, we concur with other authors that kernel-weighted local linear fitting deserves much further attention for applications.