Unbiased Estimation Of Standard Deviation
In statistics and in particular statistical theory, unbiased estimation of a standard deviation is the calculation from a statistical sample of an estimated value of the standard deviation (a measure of statistical dispersion) of a population of values, in such a way that the expected value of the calculation equals the true value. Except in some important situations, outlined later, the task has little relevance to applications of statistics since its need is avoided by standard procedures, such as the use of significance tests and confidence intervals, or by using Bayesian analysis.
However, for statistical theory, it provides an exemplar problem in the context of estimation theory which is both simple to state and for which results cannot be obtained in closed form. It also provides an example where imposing the requirement for unbiased estimation might be seen as just adding inconvenience, with no real benefit.
Read more about Unbiased Estimation Of Standard Deviation: Background, Effect of Autocorrelation (serial Correlation), See Also, References
Famous quotes containing the words unbiased, estimation and/or standard:
“Where there is no exaggeration there is no love, and where there is no love there is no understanding. It is only about things that do not interest one, that one can give a really unbiased opinion; and this is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless.”
—Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)
“No man ever stood lower in my estimation for having a patch in his clothes; yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Society’s double behavioral standard for women and for men is, in fact, a more effective deterrent than economic discrimination because it is more insidious, less tangible. Economic disadvantages involve ascertainable amounts, but the very nature of societal value judgments makes them harder to define, their effects harder to relate.”
—Anne Tucker (b. 1945)