Extent to which least-squares cross-validation minimises integrated square error in nonparametric density estimation

128Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Let ho, ĥo and ĥc be the windows which minimise mean integrated square error, integrated square error and the least-squares cross-validatory criterion, respectively, for kernel density estimates. It is argued that ĥo, not ho, should be the benchmark for comparing different data-driven approaches to the determination of window size. Asymptotic properties of ho-ĥo and ĥc-ĥo, and of differences between integrated square errors evaluated at these windows, are derived. It is shown that in comparison to the benchmark ĥo, the observable window ĥc performs as well as the so-called "optimal" but unattainable window ho, to both first and second order. © 1987 Springer-Verlag.

References Powered by Scopus

An alternative method of cross-validation for the smoothing of density estimates

707Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Central limit theorem for integrated square error of multivariate nonparametric density estimators

332Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

On the Choice of Smoothing Parameters for Parzen Estimators of Probability Density Functions

285Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition

1704Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Multivariate density estimation: Theory, practice, and visualization: Second edition

1214Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A brief survey of bandwidth selection for density estimation

963Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hall, P., & Marron, J. S. (1987). Extent to which least-squares cross-validation minimises integrated square error in nonparametric density estimation. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 74(4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00363516

Readers over time

‘10‘12‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2501234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 8

73%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

18%

Researcher 1

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5

45%

Mathematics 4

36%

Chemistry 1

9%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0