Bandwidth selection for procedures such as kernel density
estimation and local regression have been widely studied over the past decade.
Substantial “evidence” has been collected to establish superior
performance of modern plug-in methods in comparison to methods such as cross
validation; this has ranged from detailed analysis of rates of convergence, to
simulations, to superior performance on real datasets.
¶ In this work we take a detailed look at some of this evidence,
looking into the sources of differences. Our findings challenge the claimed
superiority of plug-in methods on several fronts. First, plug-in methods are
heavily dependent on arbitrary specification of pilot bandwidths and fail when
this specification is wrong. Second, the often-quoted variability and
undersmoothing of cross validation simply reflects the uncertainty of
band-width selection; plug-in methods reflect this uncertainty by oversmoothing
and missing important features when given difficult problems. Third, we look at
asymptotic theory. Plug-in methods use available curvature information in an
inefficient manner, resulting in inefficient estimates. Previous comparisons
with classical approaches penalized the classical approaches for this
inefficiency. Asymptotically, the plug-in based estimates are beaten by their
own pilot estimates.
Publié le : 1999-04-14
Classification:
Akaike’s information criterion,
bandwidth,
cross validation,
density estimation,
local fitting,
local likelihood,
plug-in,
62G07,
62-07,
62-09,
62G20
@article{1018031201,
author = {Loader, Clive R.},
title = {Bandwidth selection: classical or plug-in?},
journal = {Ann. Statist.},
volume = {27},
number = {4},
year = {1999},
pages = { 415-438},
language = {en},
url = {http://dml.mathdoc.fr/item/1018031201}
}
Loader, Clive R. Bandwidth selection: classical or plug-in?. Ann. Statist., Tome 27 (1999) no. 4, pp. 415-438. http://gdmltest.u-ga.fr/item/1018031201/