An X% trimmed mean means?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Rand Wilcox in Fundamentals Of Statistical Methods, 1st. edition, gives a formula which says that for a 20% trimmed mean, you would trim away 20% of one end of the ranked data, and 20% of the other end, making 40% trimmed away in total.
But spreadsheets such as the Calc of LibreOffice5, would for a 20% trimmed mean only trim away 10% from one end and another 10% from the other end, making 20% trimmed away in total.
Which one is right?
The author also writes that a 20% trimmed mean is best for mixture distributions. Is this correct?
trimmed-mean
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Rand Wilcox in Fundamentals Of Statistical Methods, 1st. edition, gives a formula which says that for a 20% trimmed mean, you would trim away 20% of one end of the ranked data, and 20% of the other end, making 40% trimmed away in total.
But spreadsheets such as the Calc of LibreOffice5, would for a 20% trimmed mean only trim away 10% from one end and another 10% from the other end, making 20% trimmed away in total.
Which one is right?
The author also writes that a 20% trimmed mean is best for mixture distributions. Is this correct?
trimmed-mean
There can't be a universal prescription (use 20%!) for mixture distributions any more than there is for any other kind of data. Choice of trimming fraction is a dark art in which how much contamination or fraction of wild(er) observations you expect should be considered with how much protection you need. Trimming is insurance against being badly off because of wild values, but sometimes the wild values are genuine too. If in doubt, explore the sensitivity of results to trimming fraction.
– Nick Cox
13 mins ago
See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117950/… for one device.
– Nick Cox
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Rand Wilcox in Fundamentals Of Statistical Methods, 1st. edition, gives a formula which says that for a 20% trimmed mean, you would trim away 20% of one end of the ranked data, and 20% of the other end, making 40% trimmed away in total.
But spreadsheets such as the Calc of LibreOffice5, would for a 20% trimmed mean only trim away 10% from one end and another 10% from the other end, making 20% trimmed away in total.
Which one is right?
The author also writes that a 20% trimmed mean is best for mixture distributions. Is this correct?
trimmed-mean
Rand Wilcox in Fundamentals Of Statistical Methods, 1st. edition, gives a formula which says that for a 20% trimmed mean, you would trim away 20% of one end of the ranked data, and 20% of the other end, making 40% trimmed away in total.
But spreadsheets such as the Calc of LibreOffice5, would for a 20% trimmed mean only trim away 10% from one end and another 10% from the other end, making 20% trimmed away in total.
Which one is right?
The author also writes that a 20% trimmed mean is best for mixture distributions. Is this correct?
trimmed-mean
trimmed-mean
asked 50 mins ago
HumbleOrange
694
694
There can't be a universal prescription (use 20%!) for mixture distributions any more than there is for any other kind of data. Choice of trimming fraction is a dark art in which how much contamination or fraction of wild(er) observations you expect should be considered with how much protection you need. Trimming is insurance against being badly off because of wild values, but sometimes the wild values are genuine too. If in doubt, explore the sensitivity of results to trimming fraction.
– Nick Cox
13 mins ago
See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117950/… for one device.
– Nick Cox
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
There can't be a universal prescription (use 20%!) for mixture distributions any more than there is for any other kind of data. Choice of trimming fraction is a dark art in which how much contamination or fraction of wild(er) observations you expect should be considered with how much protection you need. Trimming is insurance against being badly off because of wild values, but sometimes the wild values are genuine too. If in doubt, explore the sensitivity of results to trimming fraction.
– Nick Cox
13 mins ago
See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117950/… for one device.
– Nick Cox
12 mins ago
There can't be a universal prescription (use 20%!) for mixture distributions any more than there is for any other kind of data. Choice of trimming fraction is a dark art in which how much contamination or fraction of wild(er) observations you expect should be considered with how much protection you need. Trimming is insurance against being badly off because of wild values, but sometimes the wild values are genuine too. If in doubt, explore the sensitivity of results to trimming fraction.
– Nick Cox
13 mins ago
There can't be a universal prescription (use 20%!) for mixture distributions any more than there is for any other kind of data. Choice of trimming fraction is a dark art in which how much contamination or fraction of wild(er) observations you expect should be considered with how much protection you need. Trimming is insurance against being badly off because of wild values, but sometimes the wild values are genuine too. If in doubt, explore the sensitivity of results to trimming fraction.
– Nick Cox
13 mins ago
See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117950/… for one device.
– Nick Cox
12 mins ago
See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117950/… for one device.
– Nick Cox
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just that usage is not universal. However, I've seen Wilcox's definition used more than the other. Wikipedia agrees with him, as do several other sites I browsed to, and so do SAS, and R.
1
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just that usage is not universal. However, I've seen Wilcox's definition used more than the other. Wikipedia agrees with him, as do several other sites I browsed to, and so do SAS, and R.
1
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just that usage is not universal. However, I've seen Wilcox's definition used more than the other. Wikipedia agrees with him, as do several other sites I browsed to, and so do SAS, and R.
1
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just that usage is not universal. However, I've seen Wilcox's definition used more than the other. Wikipedia agrees with him, as do several other sites I browsed to, and so do SAS, and R.
Neither is "right" or "wrong"; it's just that usage is not universal. However, I've seen Wilcox's definition used more than the other. Wikipedia agrees with him, as do several other sites I browsed to, and so do SAS, and R.
edited 18 mins ago
Nick Cox
37k477124
37k477124
answered 27 mins ago
Peter Flom♦
72.2k11103196
72.2k11103196
1
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
1
1
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
(+1) I agree with this. I'll add that there are situations where trimming in one tail only is entirely reasonable. In that case the terminology would, or should, agree.
– Nick Cox
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f368950%2fan-x-trimmed-mean-means%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
There can't be a universal prescription (use 20%!) for mixture distributions any more than there is for any other kind of data. Choice of trimming fraction is a dark art in which how much contamination or fraction of wild(er) observations you expect should be considered with how much protection you need. Trimming is insurance against being badly off because of wild values, but sometimes the wild values are genuine too. If in doubt, explore the sensitivity of results to trimming fraction.
– Nick Cox
13 mins ago
See stats.stackexchange.com/questions/117950/… for one device.
– Nick Cox
12 mins ago