四种估计指数分布尺度参数方法的比较

Huda M. Alomari
{"title":"四种估计指数分布尺度参数方法的比较","authors":"Huda M. Alomari","doi":"10.4236/jamp.2023.1110186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, the estimators of the scale parameter of the exponential distribution obtained by applying four methods, using complete data, are critically examined and compared. These methods are the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE), the Square-Error Loss Function (BSE), the Entropy Loss Function (BEN) and the Composite LINEX Loss Function (BCL). The performance of these four methods was compared based on three criteria: the Mean Square Error (MSE), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Using Monte Carlo simulation based on relevant samples, the comparisons in this study suggest that the Bayesian method is better than the maximum likelihood estimator with respect to the estimation of the parameter that offers the smallest values of MSE, AIC, and BIC. Confidence intervals were then assessed to test the performance of the methods by comparing the 95% CI and average lengths (AL) for all estimation methods, showing that the Bayesian methods still offer the best performance in terms of generating the smallest ALs.","PeriodicalId":15035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Four Methods of Estimating the Scale Parameter for the Exponential Distribution\",\"authors\":\"Huda M. Alomari\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/jamp.2023.1110186\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, the estimators of the scale parameter of the exponential distribution obtained by applying four methods, using complete data, are critically examined and compared. These methods are the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE), the Square-Error Loss Function (BSE), the Entropy Loss Function (BEN) and the Composite LINEX Loss Function (BCL). The performance of these four methods was compared based on three criteria: the Mean Square Error (MSE), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Using Monte Carlo simulation based on relevant samples, the comparisons in this study suggest that the Bayesian method is better than the maximum likelihood estimator with respect to the estimation of the parameter that offers the smallest values of MSE, AIC, and BIC. Confidence intervals were then assessed to test the performance of the methods by comparing the 95% CI and average lengths (AL) for all estimation methods, showing that the Bayesian methods still offer the best performance in terms of generating the smallest ALs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2023.1110186\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2023.1110186","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对指数分布的尺度参数用四种方法求得的全数据估计量进行了严格的检验和比较。这些方法包括极大似然估计(MLE)、平方误差损失函数(BSE)、熵损失函数(BEN)和复合LINEX损失函数(BCL)。基于均方误差(MSE)、赤池信息准则(AIC)和贝叶斯信息准则(BIC)三个标准对四种方法的性能进行了比较。通过对相关样本的蒙特卡罗模拟,本研究的比较表明,在MSE、AIC和BIC值最小的参数估计方面,贝叶斯方法优于极大似然估计。然后评估置信区间,通过比较所有估计方法的95% CI和平均长度(AL)来测试方法的性能,表明贝叶斯方法在生成最小的AL方面仍然提供最佳性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparison of Four Methods of Estimating the Scale Parameter for the Exponential Distribution
In this paper, the estimators of the scale parameter of the exponential distribution obtained by applying four methods, using complete data, are critically examined and compared. These methods are the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE), the Square-Error Loss Function (BSE), the Entropy Loss Function (BEN) and the Composite LINEX Loss Function (BCL). The performance of these four methods was compared based on three criteria: the Mean Square Error (MSE), the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Using Monte Carlo simulation based on relevant samples, the comparisons in this study suggest that the Bayesian method is better than the maximum likelihood estimator with respect to the estimation of the parameter that offers the smallest values of MSE, AIC, and BIC. Confidence intervals were then assessed to test the performance of the methods by comparing the 95% CI and average lengths (AL) for all estimation methods, showing that the Bayesian methods still offer the best performance in terms of generating the smallest ALs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Adaptive Stochastic Synchronization of Uncertain Delayed Neural Networks A Comparison of Four Methods of Estimating the Scale Parameter for the Exponential Distribution Optimal Treatment Strategy for Infectious Diseases with Two Treatment Stages Conservative Vector Fields and the Intersect Rule Dynamic Analysis of a Predator-Prey Model with Holling-II Functional Response
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1