Advertisement

Statistical Methods & Applications

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 569–596 | Cite as

On the efficiency of Gini’s mean difference

  • Carina GerstenbergerEmail author
  • Daniel Vogel
Article

Abstract

The asymptotic relative efficiency of the mean deviation with respect to the standard deviation is 88 % at the normal distribution. In his seminal 1960 paper A survey of sampling from contaminated distributions, J. W. Tukey points out that, if the normal distribution is contaminated by a small \(\epsilon \)-fraction of a normal distribution with three times the standard deviation, the mean deviation is more efficient than the standard deviation—already for \(\epsilon < 1\,\%\). In the present article, we examine the efficiency of Gini’s mean difference (the mean of all pairwise distances). Our results may be summarized by saying Gini’s mean difference combines the advantages of the mean deviation and the standard deviation. In particular, an analytic expression for the finite-sample variance of Gini’s mean difference at the normal mixture model is derived by means of the residue theorem, which is then used to determine the contamination fraction in Tukey’s 1:3 normal mixture distribution that renders Gini’s mean difference and the standard deviation equally efficient. We further compute the influence function of Gini’s mean difference, and carry out extensive finite-sample simulations.

Keywords

Influence function Mean deviation Median absolute deviation Normal mixture distribution Residue theorem Robustness \(Q_n\) Standard deviation 

Mathematics Subject Classification

62G35 62G05 62G20 

Jel Classification

C13 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Herold Dehling for introducing us to the theory of U-statistics, to Roland Fried for introducing us to robust statistics, and to Alexander Dürre, who has demonstrated the benefit of complex analysis for solving statistical problems. Both authors were supported in part by the Collaborative Research Centre 823 Statistical modelling of nonlinear dynamic processes.

References

  1. Ahlfors LV (1966) Complex analysis, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Babu GJ, Rao CR (1992) Expansions for statistics involving the mean absolute deviations. Ann Inst Stat Math 2(44):387–403MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickel PJ, Lehmann EL (1976) Descriptive statistics for nonparametric models, III. Dispersion. Ann Stat 6:1139–1148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gorard S (2005) Revisiting a 90-year-old debate: the advantages of the mean deviation. Br J Educ Stud 4:417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hall P, Welsh A (1985) Limit theorems for the median deviation. Ann Inst Stat Math 1(37):27–36MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hampel FR (1974) The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. J Am Stat Assoc 69:383–393zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hampel FR, Ronchetti EM, Rousseeuw PJ, Stahel WA (1986) Robust statistics. The approach based on influence functions. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoeffding W (1948) A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution. Ann Math Stat 19:293–325zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hojo T (1931) Distribution of the median, quartiles and interquartile distance in samples from a normal population. Biometrika 3–4(23):315–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huber PJ, Ronchetti EM (2009) Robust statistics. Wiley series in probability and statistics, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  11. Kenney F, Keeping E (1952) Mathematics of statistics. Part two. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Lax DA (1985) Robust estimators of scale: finite-sample performance in long-tailed symmetric distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 391(80):736–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lomnicki ZA (1952) The standard error of Gini’s mean difference. Ann Math Stat 4(23):635–637MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nair US (1936) The standard error of Gini’s mean difference. Biometrika 28:428–436zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pham-Gia T, Hung T (2001) The mean and median absolute deviations. Math Comput Model 7(34):921–936MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/. ISBN:3-900051-07-0
  17. Rousseeuw P, Croux C, Todorov V, Ruckstuhl A, Salibian-Barrera M, Verbeke T, Manuel Koller MM (2014) robustbase: basic robust statistics. . R package version 0.91-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=robustbase
  18. Rousseeuw PJ, Croux C (1993) Alternatives to the median absolute deviation. J Am Stat Assoc 424(88):1273–1283MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tukey JW (1960) A survey of sampling from contaminated distributions. In: Olkin I et al (eds) Contributions to probability and statistics. Essays in honor of Harold Hotteling. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 448–485Google Scholar
  20. Yitzhaki S (2003) Gini’s mean difference: a superior measure of variability for non-normal distributions. Metron 2(61):285–316MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für MathematikRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Complex Systems and Mathematical BiologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations