Alternatives to the Median Absolute Deviation
中位绝对偏差的替代尺度估计量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:摘要讨论通用稳健尺度估计,未提供金融波动率或经济分布效应应用的依据。
中位绝对偏差的替代尺度估计量AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
In robust estimation one frequently needs an initial or auxiliary estimate of scale. For this one usually takes the median absolute deviation MAD n = 1.4826 med, {|xi − med j x j |}, because it has a simple explicit formula, needs little computation time, and is very robust as witnessed by its bounded influence function and its 50% breakdown point. But there is still room for improvement in two areas: the fact that MAD n is aimed at symmetric distributions and its low (37%) Gaussian efficiency. In this article we set out to construct explicit and 50% breakdown scale estimators that are more efficient. We consider the estimator Sn = 1.1926 med, {med j | xi − xj |} and the estimator Qn given by the .25 quantile of the distances {|xi − x j |; i < j}. Note that Sn and Qn do not need any location estimate. Both Sn and Qn can be computed using O(n log n) time and O(n) storage. The Gaussian efficiency of Sn is 58%, whereas Qn attains 82%. We study Sn and Qn by means of their influence functions, their bias curves (for implosion as well as explosion), and their finite-sample performance. Their behavior is also compared at non-Gaussian models, including the negative exponential model where Sn has a lower gross-error sensitivity than the MAD.