Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 934

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

An alternative method of cross-validation for the smoothing of density estimates

BOWMAN, ADRIAN W.·1984·Biometrika

Abstract

Cross-validation with Kullback-Leibler loss function has been applied to the choice of a smoothing parameter in the kernel method of density estimation. A framework for this problem is constructed and used to derive an alternative method of cross-validation, based on integrated squared error, recently also proposed by Rudemo (1982). Hall (1983) has established the consistency and asymptotic optimality of the new method. For small and moderate sized samples, the performances of the two methods of cross-validation are compared on simulated data and specific examples.

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 · 10.1093/biomet/71.2.353

Cites

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 934

Metadata

Authors
BOWMAN, A. W.
Venue
Biometrika
Published
1984
Volume
71
Issue
2
Pages
353-360
ISSN
  • 0006-3444 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3510
OpenAlex
W1998378660
Cited by
934
References
0
FWCI
7.42
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: An alternative method of cross-validation for the smoothing of density estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biomet/71.2.353
The paper
BOWMAN, A. W. (1984). An alternative method of cross-validation for the smoothing of density estimates. Biometrika. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/71.2.353

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.