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
分类依据题名和摘要中的方法词与领域语境,不使用期刊名称猜测研究方向。
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
原文摘要
We examine the way in which empirical bandwidth choice affects distributional properties of nonparametric density estimators. Two bandwidth selection methods are considered in detail: local and global plug-in rules. Particular attention is focussed on whether the accuracy of distributional bootstrap approximations is appreciably influenced by using the resample version $\hat{h}*$,rather than the sample version $\hat{h}$, of an empirical bandwidth. It is shown theoretically that,in marked contrast to similar problems in more familiar settings, no general first-order theoretical improvement can be expected when using the resampling version. In the case of local plug-in rules, the inability of the bootstrap to accurately reflect biases of the components used to construct the bandwidth selector means that the bootstrap distribution of $\hat{h}*$ is unable to capture some of the main properties of the distribution of $\hat{h}$. If the second derivative component is slightly undersmoothed then some improvements are possible through using $\hat{h}*$, but they would be difficult to achieve in practice. On the other hand, for global plug-in methods, both $\hat{h}$ and $\hat{h}*$ are such good approximations to an optimal, deterministic bandwidth that the variations of either can be largely ignored, at least at a first-order level.Thus, for quite different reasons in the two cases, the computational burden of varying an empirical bandwidth across resamples is difficult to justify.