跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要讨论通用密度估计的调参理论,未涉及分位数回归或经济分布效应,故不作细分归类。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
David W. Scott
George R. Terrell

密度估计中的有偏与无偏交叉验证

研究问题
核密度和直方图估计应如何依据数据选择平滑参数,有偏与无偏交叉验证在噪声、渐近效率和小样本可靠性上有何差异?
方法与思路
作者通过估计密度导数的平方积分构造有偏准则,并将两类交叉验证表示为 U 统计量,结合理论、模拟和实例比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,密度充分光滑时有偏交叉验证可获得较大渐近效率收益,同时解释了样本过小时自动交叉验证的不可靠性。
阅读关注点
应核对光滑条件、损失与风险准则的区别、带宽随机波动的推导,以及小样本要求如何转化为实际选择建议。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;效率收益依赖光滑性与渐近条件,具体样本门槛未说明,不能推断刊本变化。

原文摘要

Nonparametric density estimation requires the specification of smoothing parameters. The demands of statistical objectivity make it highly desirable to base the choice on properties of the data set. In this article we introduce some biased cross-validation criteria for selection of smoothing parameters for kernel and histogram density estimators, closely related to one investigated in Scott and Factor (1981). These criteria are obtained by estimating L 2 norms of derivatives of the unknown density and provide slightly biased estimates of the average squared L 2 error or mean integrated squared error. These criteria are roughly the analog of Wahba's (1981) generalized cross-validation procedure for orthogonal series density estimators. We present the relationship of the biased cross-validation procedure to the least squares cross-validation procedure, which provides unbiased estimates of the mean integrated squared error. Both methods are shown to be based on U statistics. We compare the two methods by theoretical calculation of the noise in the cross-validation functions and corresponding cross-validated smoothing parameters, by Monte Carlo simulation, and by example. Surprisingly large gains in asymptotic efficiency are observed when biased cross-validation is compared with unbiased cross-validation if the underlying density is sufficiently smooth. The theoretical results explain some of the small sample behavior of cross-validation functions: we show that cross-validation algorithms can be unreliable for sample sizes that are “too small.” To aid the practitioner in the use of these appealing automatic cross-validation algorithms and to help facilitate evaluation of future algorithms, we must address some oftentimes controversial issues in density estimation: squared loss, the integrated squared error and mean integrated squared error criteria, adaptive density estimates, sample size requirements, and assumptions about the underlying density's smoothness. We conclude that the two cross-validation procedures behave quite differently, so one might well use both in practice.

笔记与分组