1998
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-9473(98)00047-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimum Hellinger distance estimation for Poisson mixtures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other problems arising in discrete-valued time series modeling with the proposed model are currently being studied, for example, parameter estimation by minimum Hellinger distance estimation (Karlis and Xekalaki 1998) and further consideration of other marginal probabilities such as binomial which will be of interest. Similar developments have been carried out by McKenzie (1987) and Weiß (2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other problems arising in discrete-valued time series modeling with the proposed model are currently being studied, for example, parameter estimation by minimum Hellinger distance estimation (Karlis and Xekalaki 1998) and further consideration of other marginal probabilities such as binomial which will be of interest. Similar developments have been carried out by McKenzie (1987) and Weiß (2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other problems arising in discrete-valued time series modelling by the proposed model are currently being studied, for example, parameter estimation by Minimum Hellinger Distance estimation [16] and consideration of other marginal probabilities such as binomial and negative binomial. See similar developments that have been carried out by Wei [17] and McKenzie [18].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The L 2 E objective function in Equation (5) is much simpler for computation than that of the MHDE, which is an extension of the HELMIX algorithm of [16]. As a result, the MDHE method is slower and more sensitive to the choice of initial values [16] than the L 2 E method.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The L 2 E objective function in Equation (5) is much simpler for computation than that of the MHDE, which is an extension of the HELMIX algorithm of [16]. As a result, the MDHE method is slower and more sensitive to the choice of initial values [16] than the L 2 E method. Also, as mentioned in Section 3, the L 2 E can be readily extended to the continuous response case and the key integral in the objective function has a closed form for many known mixtures, whereas the MHDE method for the continuous case would need conditional density estimators and optimal bandwidths, which place a severe burden on computations.…”
Section: Computational Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%