平方Msplit(q)估计的稳健性:实证分析

IF 0.5 4区 地球科学 Q4 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica Pub Date : 2020-04-06 DOI:10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y
Robert Duchnowski, Zbigniew Wiśniewski
{"title":"平方Msplit(q)估计的稳健性:实证分析","authors":"Robert Duchnowski,&nbsp;Zbigniew Wiśniewski","doi":"10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper concerns squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation and its robustness against outliers. Previous studies in this field have been based on theoretical approaches. It has been proven that a conventional analysis of robustness is insufficient for M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation. This is due to the split of the functional model into q competitive ones and, hence, the estimation of q competitive versions of the parameters of such models. Thus, we should consider robustness from the global point of view (traditional approach) and from the local point of view (robustness in relation between two “neighboring” estimates of the parameters). Theoretical considerations have generally produced many interesting findings about the robustness of M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation and the robustness of the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation, although some of features are asymptotic. Therefore, this paper is focused on empirical analysis of the robustness of the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation for finite samples and, hence, it produces information on robustness from a more practical point of view. Mostly, the analyses are based on Monte Carlo simulations. A different number of observation aggregations are considered to determine how the assumption of different values of q influence the estimation results. The analysis shows that local robustness (empirical local breakdown points) is fully compatible with the theoretical derivations. Global robustness is highly dependent on the correct assumption regarding q. If it suits reality, i.e. if we predict the number of observation aggregations and the number of outliers correctly, then the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation can be an alternative to classical robust estimations. This is confirmed by empirical comparisons between the method in question and the robust M-estimation (the Huber method). On the other hand, if the assumed value of q is incorrect, then the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation usually breaks down.</p>","PeriodicalId":22001,"journal":{"name":"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica","volume":"64 2","pages":"153 - 171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robustness of squared Msplit(q) estimation: Empirical analyses\",\"authors\":\"Robert Duchnowski,&nbsp;Zbigniew Wiśniewski\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper concerns squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation and its robustness against outliers. Previous studies in this field have been based on theoretical approaches. It has been proven that a conventional analysis of robustness is insufficient for M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation. This is due to the split of the functional model into q competitive ones and, hence, the estimation of q competitive versions of the parameters of such models. Thus, we should consider robustness from the global point of view (traditional approach) and from the local point of view (robustness in relation between two “neighboring” estimates of the parameters). Theoretical considerations have generally produced many interesting findings about the robustness of M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation and the robustness of the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation, although some of features are asymptotic. Therefore, this paper is focused on empirical analysis of the robustness of the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation for finite samples and, hence, it produces information on robustness from a more practical point of view. Mostly, the analyses are based on Monte Carlo simulations. A different number of observation aggregations are considered to determine how the assumption of different values of q influence the estimation results. The analysis shows that local robustness (empirical local breakdown points) is fully compatible with the theoretical derivations. Global robustness is highly dependent on the correct assumption regarding q. If it suits reality, i.e. if we predict the number of observation aggregations and the number of outliers correctly, then the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation can be an alternative to classical robust estimations. This is confirmed by empirical comparisons between the method in question and the robust M-estimation (the Huber method). On the other hand, if the assumed value of q is incorrect, then the squared M<sub>split(q)</sub> estimation usually breaks down.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica\",\"volume\":\"64 2\",\"pages\":\"153 - 171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11200-019-0356-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文研究平方Msplit(q)估计及其对异常值的鲁棒性。以往在这一领域的研究都是基于理论方法。已经证明,传统的鲁棒性分析对于Msplit(q)估计是不够的。这是由于将功能模型拆分为q个竞争模型,因此需要对这些模型参数的q个竞争版本进行估计。因此,我们应该从全局角度(传统方法)和从局部角度(两个“相邻”参数估计之间的关系的鲁棒性)考虑鲁棒性。虽然一些特征是渐近的,但理论上的考虑通常产生了许多关于Msplit(q)估计的鲁棒性和平方Msplit(q)估计的鲁棒性的有趣发现。因此,本文的重点是对有限样本的平方Msplit(q)估计的鲁棒性进行实证分析,因此,它从更实际的角度提供了关于鲁棒性的信息。大多数情况下,分析是基于蒙特卡罗模拟。考虑不同数量的观测聚集,以确定不同q值的假设如何影响估计结果。分析表明,局部鲁棒性(经验局部击穿点)与理论推导完全一致。全局鲁棒性高度依赖于关于q的正确假设。如果它适合实际情况,即如果我们正确预测观测聚集的数量和异常值的数量,那么平方Msplit(q)估计可以替代经典的鲁棒估计。这是由所讨论的方法和稳健m估计(Huber方法)之间的经验比较证实的。另一方面,如果q的假设值不正确,则Msplit(q)的平方估计通常会失效。
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
Robustness of squared Msplit(q) estimation: Empirical analyses

This paper concerns squared Msplit(q) estimation and its robustness against outliers. Previous studies in this field have been based on theoretical approaches. It has been proven that a conventional analysis of robustness is insufficient for Msplit(q) estimation. This is due to the split of the functional model into q competitive ones and, hence, the estimation of q competitive versions of the parameters of such models. Thus, we should consider robustness from the global point of view (traditional approach) and from the local point of view (robustness in relation between two “neighboring” estimates of the parameters). Theoretical considerations have generally produced many interesting findings about the robustness of Msplit(q) estimation and the robustness of the squared Msplit(q) estimation, although some of features are asymptotic. Therefore, this paper is focused on empirical analysis of the robustness of the squared Msplit(q) estimation for finite samples and, hence, it produces information on robustness from a more practical point of view. Mostly, the analyses are based on Monte Carlo simulations. A different number of observation aggregations are considered to determine how the assumption of different values of q influence the estimation results. The analysis shows that local robustness (empirical local breakdown points) is fully compatible with the theoretical derivations. Global robustness is highly dependent on the correct assumption regarding q. If it suits reality, i.e. if we predict the number of observation aggregations and the number of outliers correctly, then the squared Msplit(q) estimation can be an alternative to classical robust estimations. This is confirmed by empirical comparisons between the method in question and the robust M-estimation (the Huber method). On the other hand, if the assumed value of q is incorrect, then the squared Msplit(q) estimation usually breaks down.

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
Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica
Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Studia geophysica et geodaetica is an international journal covering all aspects of geophysics, meteorology and climatology, and of geodesy. Published by the Institute of Geophysics of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, it has a long tradition, being published quarterly since 1956. Studia publishes theoretical and methodological contributions, which are of interest for academia as well as industry. The journal offers fast publication of contributions in regular as well as topical issues.
期刊最新文献
Present-day crustal deformation based on an interpolated GPS velocity field in the collision zone of the Arabia-Eurasia tectonic plates Effect of the 2021 Cumbre Vieja eruption on precipitable water vapor and atmospheric particles analysed using GNSS and remote sensing Geophysical structure of a local area in the lunar Oceanus Procellarum region investigated using the gravity gradient method Estimation of the minimal detectable horizontal acceleration of GNSS CORS The area of rhumb polygons
×
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