Effect of Bias Estimation on Coverage Accuracy of Bootstrap Confidence Intervals for a Probability Density
偏差估计对密度 Bootstrap 置信区间覆盖精度的影响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:摘要讨论一般概率密度区间的覆盖误差,没有明确涉及经济分布效应或所列其他应用方向。
偏差估计对密度 Bootstrap 置信区间覆盖精度的影响AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The bootstrap is a poor estimator of bias in problems of curve estimation, and so bias must be corrected by other means when the bootstrap is used to construct confidence intervals for a probability density. Bias may either be estimated explicitly, or allowed for by undersmoothing the curve estimator. Which of these two approaches is to be preferred? In the present paper we address this question from the viewpoint of coverage accuracy, assuming a given number of derivatives of the unknown density. We conclude that the simpler, undersmoothing method is more efficacious. Undersmoothing also has advantages from the standpoint of minimizing interval width. We derive formulae for bandwidths which are optimal in terms of coverage accuracy and also give formulae for the coverage error which results from using those bandwidths.