Table1 Comparison Among the existing and Proposed M-Estimators using data of Annual Average growth rate of China.
From: Enhancing performance in the presence of outliers with redescending M-estimators
Methods | Coefficients estimates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
A | b | Values used | SSE | |
OLS | − 1049 | 24.850 | 9 | 78,532.88 |
LMS | − 2.470 | 0.1020 | 7 | 0.69534 |
Tukey(2) | − 2.7535 | 0.10896 | 7 | 0.616652 |
Andrews(0.58) | − 2.7542 | 0.10898 | 7 | 0.616687 |
Ali (3.0) | − 2.7792 | 0.10956 | 7 | 0.617851 |
Qadir (1.0) | − 2.7779 | 0.10950 | 7 | 0.617785 |
Khalil (2.0) | − 2.7851 | 0.10970 | 7 | 0.618139 |
Alamgir (3.0) | 2.7853 | 0.10970 | 7 | 0.61815 |
Ullah (1.5) | − 2.7851 | 0.10970 | 7 | 0.615962 |
Raza(8, 2) | − 2.6486 | 0.10656 | 7 | 0.611112 |
Proposed(1) | − 2.7832 | 0.10965 | 7 | 0.611111 |
