Table 4 Comparison among the existing and proposed M-estimators for n = 100.
From: Enhancing performance in the presence of outliers with redescending M-estimators
Method | Case-I | Case-II | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Const | X | Const | X | |
OLS | 1.99842 | 1.00002 | 7.04260 | 0.99794 |
Tukey (4.69) | 1.99742 | 1.00011 | 1.99586 | 1.00018 |
Hample (4) | 1.99742 | 1.00008 | 1.99586 | 1.00045 |
Huber (4) | 1.99834 | 1.00002 | 1.99760 | 1.00023 |
Andrew(3.2) | 1.99801 | 1.00021 | 2.19465 | 1.00004 |
Ullah (4) | 2.00924 | 0.99964 | 1.99743 | 0.99764 |
Ali (4) | 2.00303 | 0.99984 | 1.99923 | 1.00011 |
Khalil (5) | 2.02813 | 0.99846 | 2.00358 | 0.999761 |
Raza (2) | 1.99736 | 1.00009 | 1.99331 | 1.00047 |
Proposed | 2.004547 | 0.99971 | 2.00341 | 0.999912 |
