Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On Estimation of Monotone and Concave Frontier Functions

Gijbels, Irène, Mammen, Enno, Park, Byeong U., Simar, Léopold·1999·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Abstract When analyzing the productivity of firms, one may want to compare how the firms transform a set of inputs x (typically labor, energy or capital) into an output y (typically a quantity of goods produced). The economic efficiency of a firm is then defined in terms of its ability to operate close to or on the production frontier, the boundary of the production set. The frontier function gives the maximal level of output attainable by a firm for a given combination of its inputs. The efficiency of a firm may then be estimated via the distance between the attained production level and the optimal level given by the frontier function. From a statistical viewpoint, the frontier function may be viewed as the upper boundary of the support of the population of firms density in the input and output space. It is often reasonable to assume that the production frontier is a concave monotone function. Then a famous estimator in the univariate input and output case is the data envelopment analysis (DEA) estimator, the lowest concave monotone increasing function covering all sample points. This estimator is biased downward, because it never exceeds the true production frontier. In this article we derive the asymptotic distribution of the DEA estimator, which enables us to assess the asymptotic bias and hence to propose an improved bias-corrected estimator. This bias-corrected estimator involves consistent estimation of the density function as well as of the second derivative of the production frontier. We also briefly discuss the construction of asymptotic confidence intervals. The finite-sample performance of the bias-corrected estimator is investigated via a simulation study, and the procedure is illustrated for a real data example.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01621459.1999.10473837

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Gijbels, I., Mammen, E., Park, B. U., & Simar, L.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1999-03
Volume
94
Issue
445
Pages
220-228
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2116090451
Cited by
192
References
1
FWCI
15.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On Estimation of Monotone and Concave Frontier Functions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1999.10473837
The paper
Gijbels, I., Mammen, E., Park, B. U., & Simar, L. (1999). On Estimation of Monotone and Concave Frontier Functions. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10473837

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.