[R] "hubers" function in R MASS library : problem and solution
Martin Maechler
maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch
Fri Feb 4 10:05:22 CET 2011
>>>>> Feiming Chen <feimingchen at yahoo.com>
>>>>> on Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:03:05 -0800 (PST) writes:
> Hello:
> I found the "hubers" function in MASS library is NOT working on the following
> data:
>> a <-
>> c(7.19,7.19,7.19,9.41,6.79,9.41,7.19,9.41,1.64,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,1.422,7.19,6.79,7.19,6.79,7.19,7.19,4.44,6.55,6.79,7.19,9.41,9.41,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,1.64,1.597,1.64,7.19,1.422,7.19,6.79,9.38,7.19,1.64,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,1.64,7.19,6.79,6.79,1.649,1.64,7.19,1.597,1.64,6.55,7.19,7.19,1.64,7.19,7.19,1.407,1.672,1.672,7.19,6.55,7.19,7.19,9.41,1.407,7.19,7.19,9.41,7.19,9.41,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,9.41,7.19,6.79,7.19,6.79,1.64,1.422,7.19,7.19,1.67,1.64,1.64,1.64,1.64,1.787,7.19,7.19,7.19,6.79,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,1.64,1.64,1.64,1.422,9.41,1.64,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,7.19,6.79,6.79,7.19,6.79,7.19,7.19,1.407,7.19,4.42,9,1.64,1.64,6.79,1.664,1.664)
>>
>> library(MASS)
>> hubers(a)
> ## NO response!
> I think it is due to the infinite loop caused by the following line in the code
> of "hubers" (around Line 30):
> if ((abs(mu0 - mu1) < tol * s0) &&
> abs(s0 - s1) < tol * s0) break
> where "s0" evaluates to ZERO initially (due to more than 50% of the number
> 7.19).
yes.
Not only for this reason, the robustbase package
has had the 'huberM()' function with some other slight
advantages over MASS::huber.
> I propose to change the "<" sign to "<=":
> if ((abs(mu0 - mu1) <= tol * s0) &&
> abs(s0 - s1) <= tol * s0) break
> which will break the infinite loop. However, the new result is:
>> hubers(a)
> $mu
> [1] 7.19
> $s
> [1] 0
> which gives 0 standard deviation. Actually the data does vary and it is not
> true all values other than 7.19 are outliers.
Sure. Nontheless, the way Peter Huber had defined the "proposal
2" Huber estimator, s = 0, is the correct result.
With the robustbase huberM() function, you (can) get
> huberM(a, warn0scale =TRUE)
$mu
[1] 7.19
$s
[1] 0
$it
[1] 0
Warning message:
In huberM(a, warn0scale = TRUE) :
scale 's' is zero -- returning initial 'mu'
>> plot(a)
> I think this is because we allow initial SD to equal to zero instead of a
> POSITIVE value. See Line 15 of the "hubers" function:
> if (missing(s))
> s0 <- mad(y)
> I propose setting "s0" to "mad(y)" or a small positive number, whichever is
> larger. For example:
> if (missing(s))
> s0 <- max(mad(y), tol)
> where tol=1e-6.
but 'tol' is completely arbitrary and, the way you propose it
makes the resulting estimate
no-longer-scale-equivariant.
huberM() *has* an s argument for specifying the scale estimate,
so you could use it as
huberM(a, s = max(mad(a), 1e-6))
if you want.
Note that your sample 'a' is constructed in a way that all
scale-equivariant 50%-breakpoint robust estimates of scale will return s = 0,
as more than half of your observations are identical,
and scale equivariance "ensures" that in this limiting case, indeed all
other observations are "outliers".
This last point is a somewhat interesting topic for
"robustniks",
and hence I'm CC'ing the dedicated "R + Robustness" mailing
list, R-SIG-robust.
Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich
> With this change, the result is more sensible:
>> hubers(a)
> $mu
> [1] 5.88
> $s
> [1] 2.937
> Could anyone take a look at this and decide if the above modifications to the
> "hubers" function are warranted?Thanks a lot!
> Sincerely,
> Feiming Chen
> Read more >> Options >>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
More information about the R-help
mailing list