Abstract
We compare the performance of a number of estimators of the cumulative distribution function (CDF) for the following scenario: imperfect measurements are taken on an initial sample from afinite population and perfect measurements are obtained on a small calibration subset of the initial sample. The estimators we considered include two naive estimators using perfect and imperfect measurements; the ratio, difference and regression estimators for a two-phasesample; a minimum MSE estimator; Stefanski and Bay's SIMEX estimator (1996); and two proposed estimators. The proposed estimators take the form of a weighted average of perfect and imperfect measurements. They are constructed by minimizing variance among the class of weighted averages subject to an unbiasedness constraint. They differ in the manner of estimating the weight parameters. The first one uses direct sample estimates. The second one tunes the unknown parameters to an underlying normal distribution. We compare the root mean square error (RMSE) of the proposed estimator against other potential competitors through computer simulations. Our simulations show that our second estimator has the smallest RMSE among thenine compared and that the reduction in RMSE is substantial when the calibration sample is small and the error is medium or large.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Carroll, R.J. and Hall, P. (1988) Optimal rates of convergence for deconvolving a density. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83, 1184-86.
Chambers, R.L. and Dunstan, R. (1986) Estimating distribution functions from survey data. Biometrika, 73, 597-604.
Cochran, W.G. (1977) Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Cohen, T. and Spencer, B.D. (1991) Shrinking weights for unequal probability samples. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Section, 625-30.
Cook, J.R. and Stefanski, L.A. (1994) Simulation-extrapolation estimation in parametric measurement error models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(428), 1314-28.
Dorfman, A.H. (1993) A comparison of design-based and model-based estimators of the finite population distribution function. Australian Journal of Statistics, 35(1), 29-41.
Fan, J. (1992) Deconvolution with supersmooth distributions. Canadian Journal of Statistics 20, 155-69.
Kuk, A.Y.C. (1989) Estimation of distribution functions and medians under sampling with unequal probabilities. Biometrika, 75, 97-103.
Kuk, A.Y.C. (1993) A kernel method for estimating finite population distribution functions using auxiliary information. Biometrika, 80, 385-92.
Kuk, A.Y.C. & Mak, T.K. (1989) Median estimation in the presence of auxiliary information. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B), 51, 261-69.
Masry, E. and Rice, J.A. (1992) Gaussian deconvolution via differentiation. Canadian Journal of Statistics 20, 9-21.
Nusser, S.M., Carriquiry, A.L., Dodd, K.W. and Fuller, W.A. (1996) A seminparametric transformation approach to estimating usual daily intake distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 1440-49.
Rao, J.N.K., Kovar, J.G. and Mantel, H.J. (1990) On estimating distribution functions and quantiles from survey data using auxiliary information. Biometrika, 77, 365-75.
Sarndal, C., Swensson, B., and Wretman J. (1992) Model Assisted Survey Sampling. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Stefanski, L.A. and Carroll, R.J. (1990) Deconvolving kernel density estimators. Statistics, 21, 169-84.
Stefanski, L.A. and Bay, J.M. (1996) Simulation extrapolation deconvolution of finite population cumulative distribution function estimators. Biometrika, 83, 407-17.
Stenfanski, L.A. and Cook, J.R. (1995) Simulation-extrapolation: the measurement error jacknife. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(432), 1247-56.
Wolter, Kirk M. (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luo, M., Stokes, L. & Sager, T. Estimation of the CDF of a finite population in the presence of acalibration sample. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5, 277–289 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009677504572
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009677504572