Detecting influential observations in principal components and common principal components

被引:5
|
作者
Boente, Graciela [1 ,2 ]
Pires, Ana M. [3 ,4 ]
Rodrigues, Isabel M. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Buenos Aires, Fac Ciencias Exactas & Nat, RA-1053 Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[2] Consejo Nacl Invest Cient & Tecn, RA-1033 Buenos Aires, DF, Argentina
[3] Univ Tecn Lisboa, Inst Super Tecn, Dept Matemat, Lisbon, Portugal
[4] Univ Tecn Lisboa, Inst Super Tecn, CEMAT, Lisbon, Portugal
关键词
Common principal components; Detection of outliers; Influence functions; Robust estimation; OUTLIER IDENTIFICATION; ESTIMATORS; MODEL; PCA;
D O I
10.1016/j.csda.2010.01.001
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Detecting outlying observations is an important step in any analysis, even when robust estimates are used. In particular, the robustified Mahalanobis distance is a natural measure of outlyingness if one focuses on ellipsoidal distributions. However, it is well known that the asymptotic chi-square approximation for the cutoff value of the Mahalanobis distance based on several robust estimates (like the minimum volume ellipsoid, the minimum covariance determinant and the S-estimators) is not adequate for detecting atypical observations in small samples from the normal distribution. In the multi-population setting and under a common principal components model, aggregated measures based on standardized empirical influence functions are used to detect observations with a significant impact on the estimators. As in the one-population setting, the cutoff values obtained from the asymptotic distribution of those aggregated measures are not adequate for small samples. More appropriate cutoff values, adapted to the sample sizes, can be computed by using a cross-validation approach. Cutoff values obtained from a Monte Carlo study using S-estimators are provided for illustration. A real data set is also analyzed. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2967 / 2975
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] CROSS-VALIDATION, INFLUENTIAL OBSERVATIONS AND SELECTION OF VARIABLES IN CHEMOMETRIC STUDIES OF WINES BY PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS
    Scarponi, Giuseppe
    Moret, Ivo
    Capodaglio, Gabriele
    Romanazzi, Mario
    JOURNAL OF CHEMOMETRICS, 1990, 4 (03) : 217 - 240
  • [22] Discriminant analysis under the common principal components model
    Pepler, P. T.
    Uys, D. W.
    Nel, D. G.
    COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 2017, 46 (06) : 4812 - 4827
  • [23] Comparing G matrices: Are common principal components informative?
    Mezey, JG
    Houle, D
    GENETICS, 2003, 165 (01) : 411 - 425
  • [24] Using common principal components for comparing GCM simulations
    Sengupta, S
    Boyle, JS
    JOURNAL OF CLIMATE, 1998, 11 (05) : 816 - 830
  • [25] The Dynamics of Implied Volatilities: A Common Principal Components Approach
    Matthias R. Fengler
    Wolfgang K. Härdle
    Christophe Villa
    Review of Derivatives Research, 2003, 6 (3) : 179 - 202
  • [26] THE ROTATION OF PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS
    BURROUGHS, GER
    MILLER, HWL
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1961, 14 (01): : 35 - 49
  • [27] Principal Components of Touch
    Aquilina, Kirsty
    Barton, David A. W.
    Lepora, Nathan F.
    2018 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION (ICRA), 2018, : 4071 - 4078
  • [28] Principal components analysis
    Garson, GD
    SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW, 1999, 17 (01) : 129 - 131
  • [29] Variational principal components
    Bishop, CM
    NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS (ICANN99), VOLS 1 AND 2, 1999, (470): : 509 - 514
  • [30] CONSENSUS PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS
    LEFKOVITCH, LP
    BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 1993, 35 (05) : 567 - 580