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

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。

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
Peter Hall
Kee-Hoon Kang

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.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文