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:摘要研究一般回归曲线相等性的非参数检验,未明确涉及因果效应、结构变化或所列其他方向。

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
Natalie Neumeyer
Holger Dette

回归曲线的非参数比较:经验过程方法

研究问题
当两组数据的设计点不同且存在异方差时,如何非参数地比较回归曲线,并兼顾局部备择检测与曲线估计的带宽选择?
方法与思路
作者基于残差构造两个标记经验过程之差,分析检验统计量的大样本行为,并通过 wild bootstrap 模拟研究有限样本性质。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称检验适用于不同设计点与异方差,可检测所述局部备择且允许曲线估计采用最优带宽,并指出相关既有检验的校准问题。
阅读关注点
核对设计与误差条件、局部备择类别、带宽兼容性及 bootstrap 有效性,并检查对既有检验极限分布问题的论证。
阅读边界
仅据稿件版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;最优带宽与局部检测结论有相应条件,不能推断对所有函数类或样本均更优。

原文摘要

We propose a new test for the comparison of two regression curves that is based on a difference of two marked empirical processes based on residuals. The large sample behavior of the corresponding statistic is studied to provide a full nonparametric comparison of regression curves. In contrast to most procedures suggested in the literature, the new procedure is applicable in the case of different design points and heteroscedasticity. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the proposed test detects continuous alternatives converging to the null at a rate $N^{-1/2}$ and that, in contrast to all other available procedures based on marked empirical processes, the new test allows the optimal choice of bandwidths for curve estimation (e.g., $N^{-1/5}$ in the case of twice differentiable regression functions). As a by-product we explain the problems of a related test proposed by Kulasekera [J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 90 (1995) 1085-1093] and Kulasekera and Wang [J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 92 (1997) 500-511] with respect to accuracy in the approximation of the level. These difficulties mainly originate from the comparison with the quantiles of an inappropriate limit distribution. A simulation study is conducted to investigate the finite sample properties of a wild bootstrap version of the new test and to compare it with the so far available procedures. Finally, heteroscedastic data is analyzed in order to demonstrate the benefits of the new test compared to the so far available procedures which require homoscedasticity.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文