Biometrika Volume 88 Issue 1 2001 (Doi 10.2307/2673677) Peter Hall - Biometrika Centenary - Nonparametrics

Biometrika Trust
Biometrika Centenary: Nonparametrics

Author(s): Peter Hall
Source: Biometrika, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 143-165
Published by: Biometrika Trust
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2673677 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 03:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Biometrika Trust is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Biometrika.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Biometrika (2001), 88, 1,pp. 143-165
(? 2001 BiometrikaTrust
Printedin Great Britain
Nonparametrics
BiometrikaCentenary:
BY PETER HALL
Centrefor and itsApplications,
Mathematics AustralianNationalUniversity,
CanberraACT 0200,Australia
peter.hall@anu.edu.au
SUMMARY
Contributions in Biometrikato nonparametricstatisticsare surveyed,withparticular
emphasison morerecentwork.It is arguedthateven in thejournal's veryearlyyearsit
had interestsin smoothingmethodsfordensityestimation, and in techniquesfornonpara-
metricregression, in additionto its moreobviousfocuson 'classical'nonparametricstat-
isticssuch as rankingmethods.Biometrika's earlyinvolvement withpermutationtesting
has linksto its contemporary workon bootstrapmethods.Emphases on different types
of nonparametric statisticshave evolved over time,however.A rapidlyincreasingpro-
portionofthejournal'spages is devotedto papersthatincludesome use ofnonparametric
ideas or methods.
Somekeywords:Bandwidth;Bayesianmethods;Bootstrap;Categoricaldata; Classification;
Curveestimation;
Density estimation;Discrimination;Empirical likelihood;Jackknife;Kernel methods;Local polynomial
methods;Maximumpenalisedlikelihood;Nonparametriclikelihood;Nonparametricregression; Permutation
test;Rank test;Resampling;Smoothing;Survivalanalysis;Waveletmethods.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is perhapsimpossibleto formulatea formaldefinition of what constitutes'nonpara-
not least because thetermencompassessuch a wide varietyofmethods.
metricstatistics',
Mathematically, thedefinition ofnonparametric methodsas thosewherecharacterisation
oftheallowableclass ofmodelsrequiresan infinite numberofparametersis attractiveon
some grounds.It highlights the inappropriatenessof the term'nonparametric'; nonpara-
metricmodelsare notthosethatinvolveno parameter, butratherthosewherethenumber
ofparametersis extremely large.Such a definition
failsto distinguish between'nonpara-
metric'and 'semiparametric' methods,however.Furthermore, it does not helpin any way
among membersof the verydisparateclass of nonparametric
to differentiate techniques,
whichrangefrom rank and permutation teststo wavelet methods for curve estimation,
and fromthe bootstrapto conceptsof'nonparametriclikelihood'thatare at least halfa
centuryold.
In thelast quarter-century thisextraordinary has beenfostered
diversity by thedevelop-
mentofpowerful, high-speedcomputingtechnology, whichnowherein statisticshas been
feltmoreprofoundly thanin nonparametric methods.The developmenthas allowedsome
older nonparametrictechniques,formerly studiedlargelyfroma theoreticalviewpoint,
to be applied as practical,adaptivetools; and it has spawneda particularly wide range
of new statisticalmethodsin curveestimation,sample reuse techniques,nonparametric
conceptsoflikelihood,and otherareas.

144 PETER HALL
From the 1930s to the present,Biometrikahas promotedinnovationin rank-based,

permutationand distribution-free methods.Today it is havingthe same impactin non-
parametriccurve estimationand resamplingmethods.It publishesnot just the latest
methodologydevelopments,for example wavelet methods for curve estimation,but
also the adaptations of those developmentsto new areas of science and technology,
particularly to medicaland biologicalfields.
Nevertheless,Biometrikaretainsits earlierinterestsin 'classical' nonparametrics, for
exampleby continuingto publishwork on rank and permutationtests.Its interestsin
'contemporary' nonparametrics reallybeganin the1960sand theearly1970s,at thezenith
ofits contributions to classicalnonparametric methods.Thus, an analysisofBiometrika's
changingassociationwithnonparametric statisticsduringits firstcenturyrevealsmorea
changeofemphasisin theprofessionthanit does a changeof direction.
The changeofemphasisis accelerating. Whileit is possibleto identify
modernnonpara-
metricideas evenin Biometrika's firstvolume,theyremainedlargelyundevelopedforwell
over halfa century.Since the 1970s theirrole in thejournal has growngreatly,both in
quantityand practicalrelevance.Soon, nonparametric techniqueswillbe an aspectofthe
methodologyin themajorityof papers thatBiometrika publishes.
This is not to say thatparametricmethodswillnot be a part of the majority,too; the
two sides of the divideare alreadyclearlyjoined in manyof the papers thatBiometrika
publishes.For example,thejournal reportson applicationsof thejackknifeto variance
estimationin essentiallyparametricproblems,and on smoothingmethodsforadjoining
additionalinformation to a parametricmodel.The explanatorypowerofparametricinfer-
ence, and the statisticalpower of its methodology,are too valuable for the scope of
applicationsof parametricmethodsto diminish.
However,nonparametricstatisticalmethodsare showingincreasingly that theyhave
muchto offerthatis complementary, and thatthereare manynew applicationsthatare
virtuallyin theirdomainalone. The futurewillundoubtedlysee parametricand nonpara-
metrictechniquesworkingin tandem,as aspectsofa singlemethodologyforthequantifi-
cation of information.These developmentswill occur particularlyin the contextof
problemsthat involvedata typesthat have only recentlybecome a focusof significant
statisticalattention,forexamplelargeor complexdatasetsarisingthroughaggregationof
large databases or by onlinemachinerecording.Methodologieswill be highlyadaptive,
and willofteninvolveestimators definedimplicitly as globalextremaofempiricalmeasures
of performance, with special attentionbeing needed to avoid concentratingon local
extrema.
Those of us who have participatedin the developmentof so-called 'contemporary'
nonparametric methods,overthemostrecentquarter-century ofBiometrika's feel
history,
fortunateto have contributedto a period of enormouschangein statisticalscience,the
like of whichstatisticshas not witnessedsince Biometrika's The
second quarter-century.
foundationsof the greaterpart of modernnonparametricstatistics,and of parametric
statistics,werelaid down in theserespectiveeras.
Sections2, 3 and 4 of thispaper will deal withrank-basedmethods,curveestimation
and resamplingmethods,respectively. Section 5 will address developmentsthat do not
fall
conveniently under these headings.
2. RANK-BASED METHODS
Papers in Biometrikaplayeda major role in theearlydevelopmentofrankand permu-
tationtests,and includedmanyofM. G. Kendall's contributions.For example,Kendall's

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparametrics 145
(1938) introduction z, whichnow bears his name,appeared
of thecorrelationcoefficient,
there.That paper also derivedthe standarderrorofz, and showedthatthe coefficient is
asymptoticallynormallydistributed. Two subsequentpapers (Kendall, 1945, 1947) sug-
gestedmethodsfordealing withties. Kendall (1942) introducedthe methodof partial
rank correlation,and Kendall (1949) studiedthe effectsof nonnormalityon both z and
Spearman'sp; and Kendall & BabingtonSmith(1940) proposed the methodof paired
comparisons.
Interestingly,Kendall (1949) investigatedthe effectsof nonnormality using bivariate
Gramn-Charlier expansions.These are essentiallythe same as Edgeworthexpansions,
except for the way in which termsare grouped.As we shall show in ? 4, Edgeworth
expansionmethodsremainan importanttool forelucidatingthe mannerin whichnon-
parametricmethods cope with nonnormality.Kendall concluded that z is relatively
insensitiveto departurefromnormality, comparedwithp.
Bioinetrikaalso publishedHoffding's(1947) analysisof the distributionof Kendall's
rankcorrelationcoefficient whenthe variatesare not independent, Moran's (1948) deri-
vation of the mean and varianceof Spearman'srank correlationcoefficient in samples
froma bivariatenormaldistribution, and the tabulationby David et al. (1951) of the
exactdistribution and othercharacteristicsof Spearman'scoefficient.
Chambers(1946), fromthe PsychologyLaboratoryin Cambridge,reviewedcontri-
butionsto nonparametric statisticswiththepurposeofindicating'some ofthedifficulties
involvedand perhapsto intereststatisticians in thisfieldofendeavour'.He describedthe
typesofrank-testing problemthatare encounteredwithpsychologicaldata, and stressed
the vital practicalnature of that work,'particularlyat the presenttime [in post-war
Britain]whenwe are facedwithrehabilitationand reorganisationof labour on a large
scale'.A contemporary analoguemightbe an information scientistattempting to motivate
statisticians
to developmethodsforanalysingextremely largeand complexdatasets.
The early 'simulationstudy'by Fieller et al. (1957), Fieller & Pearson (1961) and
Pearson& Snow (1962), on normality and otherpropertiesofrankcorrelationcoefficients,
in
was published Biometrika. This projectwas based on 25 000 sets of correlatednormal
randomvariables,3000 ofwhichhad earlierbeenpublishedin tabularform.Computations
wouldhave beencarriedout on mechanicalcalculators.A statistician familiarwithtoday's
practiceofcomputer-intensive statisticalmethodscannothelpbutadmiretheperseverance
and singularity ofpurposethatmade such a studypossible.
Similarlinesof researchcontinueto be well represented in Biometrika, forexamplein
papers of Mielke et al. (1981) on rankingmethodsfor analysingmultiresponse, and
Buckley& Eagleson (1986) on thelargestof manyrankcorrelationcoefficients.
Developmentof 'nonparametrictests' in a wide range of settingswas a significant
activityduringthe 1940s and 1950s.Contributors in NorthAmericaincludedLehmann,
Mann, Whitneyand Wilcoxon.Contributions publishedin Biometrika included:Kamat's
(1956) introduction ofa new testfortheequalityoftwo distributions, againstthealterna-
tiveofequal locationsbut different spreads;Sukhatme's(1958) two-sampletestforcom-
paringvariances,and discussion(Sukhatme,1960) of the power of competingtestsfor
equalityofdistributions; and Wheeler& Watson's(1964) distribution-free two-sampletest
forcirculardata. Significancetestsand relatedprocedures,based on permutationsand
ranks,have continuedto be representedamong Biometrikapapers; they include,for
example,workofPeto (1972) on ranktestsagainstLehmann-type Shirahata
alternatives,
(1981) on rank testsforindependence,Lombard (1987) on rank testsforchangepoint
problems,Mehta et al. (1988) on significance testswithrandomisationrules,Wei et al.

146 PETER HALL
(1990) on rank-test-basedmethodsfor makinginferenceabout a subset of regression

coefficients,
and Pikounis& Rao (1997) on ranktestsfornonresponsewithcensoreddata.
Thereis an extensiveBioinetrika
literature
on log-ranktests,includingcontributions
from
Crowley(1974), Tarone (1975), Tarone & Ware (1977), Brown (1984), Lin (1992) and
Goetghebeur& Ryan (1990). These and relatedtopicsare dealt within greaterdetailby
Oakes (2001).
3. NONPARAMETRIC METHODS FOR CURVE ESTIMATION

341.Densityestimation and relatedtopics
From its firstyear of publicationBiometrikareportedwork on adaptivemethodsfor
fittingdensityestimatesto data. These earlytechniquesincludethosebased on Pearson's
(1920a, b) and Johnson's(1949) familiesof curves.As Scott(1992, p. 44) noted,whilethe
techniquesare explicitlyparametric,froma philosophicalviewpointsuch an adaptive
approachis the basis fora substantialpart of nonparametric statistics.
These contributionsnotwithstanding, contemporarysmoothingmethodsfor density
estimationare oftendated fromtime-series-inspired kerneltechniques,developedduring
the 1950sand 1960sby Rosenblatt,Parzen and others.Silverman(1986, pp. 32-3) briefly
surveyed densityestimation in theseearlyyears.Giventherudimentary levelsofcomputing
power that were available up to the 1970s,relativeto that whichwe enjoy today,it is
hardlysurprising thatmuchofthemotivationforresearchin thoseearlyyearswas theor-
eticalor technical,ratherthanexplicitly methodological.Perhapsas a result,littleof the
workon smoothingfordensityestimationbeforethe 1970s was publishedin Biometrika.
A notableexceptionwas theapplicationofnonparametric methodsto survivalanalysis.
A kernelapproach to hazard-rateestimationwas introducedin a Biometrikapaper by
Watson& Leadbetter(1964). The ratioestimatorthattheysuggestedis conceptuallythe
simplestofits type.Since thattime,Biometrika has publisheda wide varietyof nonpara-
metriccontributionsto survivalanalysis.Nonparametricapproaches to estimatingthe
baselinehazardratein Cox's (1972) proportionalhazardsparametricmodelforma major
example;contributions to thisproblem,publishedin Biometrika, includeworkofFahrmeir
(1994), using a dynamicor state-spaceapproach, and Wells (1994), employingkernel
smoothing.
Among otherexamplesof work in Biometrikaon survivalanalysisare the following:
Schoenfeld(1981) on nonparametrictestsfor survivaldistributions; Robins & Tsiatis
(1992) on semiparametric models forthose distributions; Uzunogullari& Wang (1992)
on hazard-rateestimatorsfortruncatedand censoreddata; Vissier(1996), Wang & Wells
(1997) and Lin & Ying (1993) on estimatinga bivariatesurvivalfunction;Fahrmeir&
Klinger(1998) on nonparametric analysisofa multi-statehazardprocess;Huang & Louis
(1998) on nonparametric estimationof thejoint distribution of survivaland markvari-
ables; and Nielsen(1999) on super-efficientnonparametric estimationofone-dimensional
hazards. For a detailed account of Biometrika'scontributionto survivalanalysis,see
Oakes (2001).
The maximumpenalisedlikelihoodapproach to densityestimationwas introducedin
a Biometrika paper by Good & Gaskins(1971). Althoughit is not immediately clearfrom
Good & Gaskins' definition, such estimatorsare generallyof weightedkerneltype,with
thesmoothingparameterexpressibleas a functionoftheroughnesspenalty.In particular,
k-nearest-neighbour estimatorsmay be viewed as maximumpenalised likelihoodesti-
mators.Close connectionsalso existto splineestimators, a linkagethatwas to be exploited

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparametrics 147
in the reversedirectionby Silverman(1984) in an Annalsof Statisticspaper developing
an equivalentvariable kernelapproach to spline estimation.Thus, Good & Gaskins'
(1971) conceptofpenalisedkernelestimatorsplays a keyrole in nonparametric methods
fordensityestimation, providinga centralidea throughwhichkerneland splinetechniques
are connected.
Anotherearlycontribution in Biometrika was Brunk's(1978) proposal fororthogonal
seriesestimatorsof univariatedensitiesderivedfromand motivatedby kernelestimators
thatare optimalin a senseintroducedby Whittle.Brunk'smethodhas Bayesianconnec-
tions,in that a preliminary fitto the data via a parametricdensityplays the role of a
prior.Brunkassumedthattheratioofthetruedensityto thepriorhas a seriesexpansion
in termsoffunctionsorthogonalwithrespectto theprior.
Methods fordata-drivenbandwidthselectionin densityestimationhad been studied
mathematically sinceat leastthe1960s,butnot untilthemid-to-late 1970swerecomputers
capable ofundertaking such tasksbecomingconveniently available to manystatisticians.
In an early contributionto bandwidthselection,Silverman(1978) suggesteda novel
graphicalmethodthatminimisessupremum, or Lo., distance.Takinga verydifferent view
of a similarproblem,Scott (1979) suggestedestimatingthe bin widthof a histogram
estimatorusingan early'substitution' or 'plug-in'method.
Scott's(1979) approachwas based on a formula, whichhe derived,forasymptotic mean
for
squarederror histogramestimators, and was the first
plug-inrule for histograms. Scott
also proposeda methodbased on reference to an 'equivalent'normaldensity,again one
ofthefirstuses ofthisapproach.Furthermore, he elaboratedon histechniqueby consider-
ing nonnormalreference distributions,one of the fewoccasions on whichthishad been
done.
Plug-inmethodsforbandwidthselectionhave gone on to enjoysignificant popularity,
not least because theycan be resistantagainstsamplingvariabilityrelativeto some other
approaches.This resistanceis reflected in the factthatplug-inrulesexistthatare root-n
consistentfor the optimal bandwidth.That is, one can constructa plug-inempirical
bandwidthselectorwhich,whendividedby the optimalbandwidth,convergesto 1 at a
rateequal to thesquare root oftheinverseofsamplesize,as thelatterincreases.The first
techniqueofthistypefordensityestimationwas publishedin Biometrika (Hall et al., 1991).
Crossvalidationwas also a popularearlytechniqueforselectingthesmoothingparam-
eter.Initiallyit was somethingof an enigma,being proposed firstin a 'likelihood'or
Kullback-Leiblerformon the basis of its good performance in numericalstudiesof dis-
criminationproblems(Habbema et al., 1974). Ironically,its 'squared error'or L2 form
was to come later,in a Biometrika paper by Bowman(1984) consideredfroma viewpoint
thattreatedlikelihoodand squared-error formsin a unifiedway. Rudemo (1982), in the
ScandinavianJournalof Statistics,addressedthe squared-error formin its own right.A
detailedtheoretical justificationof crossvalidationfordensityestimationwas to prove a
relativelytechnicalmatter,beyondtheusual compass ofBiometrika, althoughsome early
workon thatsubject(Hall, 1982) appearedthere.
Bowman(1984) showedthatbothlikelihoodand squared-error crossvalidation maybe
derivedfromthe more generalcrossvalidationframeworkdeveloped in Biometrikaby
Stone(1974a, 1977); see also Stone(1974b),in theJournaloftheRoyal StatisticalSociety,
and Burman(1989). This contextwas particularly not leastbecause it provided
satisfying,
a linkbetweeninfinite-dimensional problemsofnonparametric curveestimationand finite-
dimensionalproblemsin moreconventionalareas.Nevertheless, importantgeneralisations
to otherloss functionshave not materialised, and likelihoodand squared-error formsof

148 PETER HALL
crossvalidationremainthe only viable methodologicalapproaches.The squared-error

formin particularhas endured,forexamplebecause of the almostuniversalrangeof its
potentialapplications,at least to independentdata. This is not to say, however,thatit
alwaysbeststhe performance of competingmethods.
Many propertiesof a varietyof smoothing-parameter selectors,for example their
discretisation errorand the tendencyof such methodsto choose too small a bandwidth,
have been exploredin Bioinetrika;see, forexample,Chiu (1990, 1991). Approachesto
bandwidthchoice based on Akaike's informationcriterion,bootstrap methods and
Rissanen'snotionof stochasticcomplexityweresuggestedin Biometrika by Taylor(1987,
1989) and Hall & Hannan (1988), respectively. Chiu (1992) proposed Fouriermethods,
and Hall, Marron & Titterington(1995) studied location-adaptivesmoothingrules.
Bowman et al. (1998) discussedcrossvalidationmethodsforselectingbandwidthwhen
estimatinga distribution function.
Papersin Biometrika have contributed in a majorwayto thedevelopmentofsmoothing
methodsforcategoricalor discretedata. An earlycontribution was the seminalpaper by
Aitchison& Aitken(1976) on kernelmethodsfor multivariatebinarydiscrimination.
Aitchison& Aitkentreatedthe case of unordered,purelybinarydata, whereeach data
vectorconsistedsolelyofzerosand ones.Theirkernelmethodgave geometrically decreas-
ing weightsto categoriesthatweresuccessivelyfurther apart;distancebetweentwo cat-
egories,or equivalentlybetweentwo binary vectors,was definedas the number of
componentsof the vectorsthat differed. Titterington (1977) developed versionsof the
methodin the case of missingdata, and forunivariateand multivariate settings.
A particularly novel aspectof Aitchison& Aitken's(1976) contributions was theiruse
of a likelihoodformof crossvalidationforchoosingthe smoothingparameter.Bowman
(1980) provedconsistency, in the settingof standardasymptotics, of thisapproach.Hall
(1981) notedthatit was susceptibleto thepresenceofsmallcell counts,and proposedan
alternativemethodbased on squared-error loss. Bowman et al. (1984) adopted a general
viewpointin thisclass ofmethods,treatingbothgeneralloss functions and generaldiscrete
distributions. Tutz (1986) suggestedan alternativeapproach to choosingthe smoothing
parameter,based on maximisationof a leave-one-outestimatorof the nonerrorrate.
Whenthecategoriesare ordered,theschemeofkernelweightsshouldreflect thisfeature.
Aitchison& Aitken(1976) addressedthisproblemin the case of v= 3 multinomialcells,
and subsequentauthorsdeveloped more generalor alternativeapproaches. Examples
publishedin Biometrikainclude:work of Wang & van Ryzin(1981), who developeda
weighting methodforarbitrary v; Hall & Wand (1988), who consideredweighting schemes
fromtheviewpointofdiscrimination; and Faddy & Jones(1998), who suggestedmethods
forsmoothingdata froma Markov chain.
Much ofthisworkwas motivatedbyproblemsofdiscrimination or classification.Other
work in that area includesresearchof Cooley & MacEachern (1998), who introduced
new nonparametric methodsforclassification usingmultivariate data in thecontinuum.
Techniquesforbias reductionin densityestimationin the continuum,withoutrisking
negativity of the estimator,are a relativelyrecenttopic forresearch.Contributionspub-
lished in Biometrikainclude: those of Hall (1990), who explored variable bandwidth
methods;Samiuddin& El-Sayyad(1990), who also addressedthistopic and in addition
introducedtheidea of'inadmissibility' forkernelsused in densityestimation;Joneset al.
(1995), who proposeda multiplicative, two-stagebias correction; and Choi & Hall (1999),
who suggestedtechniquesbased on translatingdata values. Pawitan & Gangopadhyay
(1991) suggestedbias reductionmethodsforspectraldensityestimation. Joneset al. (1998)

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparametrics 149
introducedthe'edgefrequency polygon',which,as theyshowed,has less asymptotic mean
squared errorthanthe standardfrequency polygon.
Excessivebias at the ends of the supportof a densitycan be a seriousproblemfor
kerneldensityestimators.Methods forovercomingthisdifficulty have been considered
by Singh (1979), who proposed a range of boundarykernels,and Muiller(1991), who
treatedthe boundarykernelproblemas a variationalone and introducedmethodsfor
adjustingbandwidthnear boundaries.
A varietyofBayesianapproachesto densityestimationhave beendiscussedin thepages
of Biometrika. They includethe histogrammethodintroducedby Leonard (1973), based
on a multivariate normalprioron thelogarithmsofcell probabilities, normalisedso that
the sum of the probabilitiesalways equal 1. Thorburn(1986) suggestedan alternative
approach,foundedon thepriorassumptionthatthelog-density is a samplefunctionfrom
a Gaussian process but constrainedso that the densityintegratesto 1. The posterior
distribution is thenalso a Gaussian process,withthe same covariancefunction.
Usingrelatedmethods,Lenk (1991) developed,amongotherrefinements, a hierarchical
Bayesformulation forthesmoothingstepin densityestimation, forwhichhe used splines.
One difficulty in placing a Bayesian interpretation
on standardfrequentist smoothing
methodsis thattheyusuallyhave no exactmodel-basedinterpretation, sincetheyviolate
conditionsthatdefinecoherentjoint distributions. This problemwas investigated by West
(1991). Kuk (1993) showedhow to incorporateauxiliaryinformation into a kernelesti-
matorof a finitepopulationdistribution function.Newton& Zhang (1999) introduceda
recursivemethodfortreatinggeneralproblemsof Bayesianinference whenthe sampling
populationis viewednonparametrically.
Scott & Wand (1991) dispelledsome of the traditionalconcernsregardingnonpara-
metricdensityestimationin highdimensions.They suggestedthat the 'curse of dimen-
sionality'was as muchtheresultoflack offullrankin theestimationproblemas ofdata
sparseness.They showed that,as a consequenceof the relativelysmall fractionalpower
of sample size that is involvedin definingoptimal bandwidths,those quantitiesvary
relativelylittlewith dimension.In the contextof dimensionreductionand projection
pursuit,Sun (1991) derivedan approximationto the significance level associated with
Friedman'sprojectionpursuitindex.
3 2. Nonparametric and relatedtopics

regression
Adaptivesmoothingmethodsin regressiondate back at least to 19th-century workon
local polynomialfitting, much of it connectedto actuarialscience;see, forexample,dis-
cussionsby Stigler(1978) and Cleveland& Loader (1996). Biometrika was involvedearly
in the 1900s, for example throughmethodologyintroducedby Spencer (1904), who
employeda movingaveragetechniqueto 'graduate'data on sicknessrates.His formulae
werelimitedin termsofthegradationofsmoothingthattheyallowed,but theirrelevance
to development ofsmoothingmethodscannotbe denied.In particular,Spencer'smethods
reproducepolynomialsof givendegree,and are a precursor,by about two decades, of
splinemethodsthatalso have thatproperty.
Biometrikahas been almostas prominentin thedevelopmentofmethodologyfornon-
parametricregression Its presencehas beenfeltparticularly
as it has fordensityestimation.
in thecontextofmethodsforbandwidthselection.For example,Shibata(1981) proposed
a modifiedformof crossvalidationfornonparametric allowingone to avoid
regression,
underestimation ofpredictive error.Hardle & Marron(1985) made a theoretical compari-

150 PETER HALL
son of bandwidthselectorsbased on crossvalidation,Akaike's information criterionor

finitepredictionerror.Ansley& Kohn (1987) developeda generalisedformofcrossvalid-
ationforsplinesmoothingwithstate-spacemodels.Mulleret al. (1987) suggesteda gener-
alisedformofcrossvalidation forcomputingempiricalbandwidthselectorsin theproblem
ofestimating derivativesof a regressionfunction.This led themto proposea methodfor
constructing confidenceintervalsforthatfunction.
Many ofBiometrika's contributions to bandwidthselectionhave been in thecontextof
dependentdata. For example,Walden & White(1990) discussedchoice ofbandwidthfor
smoothingin a time series.Herrmannet al. (1992) addressedbandwidthselectionin
nonparametric regressionwithtimeserieserrors,and Burmanet al. (1994) proposed a
modification of crossvalidationforthe same setting.Ray & Tsay (1997) suggestedband-
widthchoice methodsfor long-rangedependentdata. Hoover et al. (1998) employed
crossvalidationin theirnonparametric approach to time-varying coefficientmodels.
In nonparametricregression,estimationof residualvarianceis generallyrequiredin
orderto definebandwidthestimatesbased on plug-inrules,or to constructconfidence
regionsor hypothesistestsabout the regressionmean. However,the inherently finite-
dimensionalnatureof varianceestimationproblemsmeans thattheyhave tendedto be
neglectedin the curve estimationliterature.Importantexceptionsto this rule include
severalpapers,publishedin Biometrika, thatforma major part of contributions to the
area; see, forexample,Gasser et al. (1986), Buckley et al. &
(1988), Buckley Eagleson
(1989), Hall & Marron (1990), Hall et al. (1990), Chan (1991) and Seifertet al. (1993).
In addition,Muller & Stadtmuller(1988) suggestedmethodsforestimating, and testing
hypothesesabout, errorcovariancein nonparamnetric regressionfromdependentdata.
Thompsonet al. (1991) proposedvarianceestimationmethodsforuse in connectionwith
regularisation.Fan & Yao (1998) developedmethodsforestimating conditionalvariance.
Gasser & Engle (1990) discussedoptimalitywith respectto mean squared errorof
variouschoicesof weightsin kernelnonparametric regression.This workwas to assume
particularimportancein thedebate about performance of such methodsrelativeto local
linearsmoothing.The debate continuestoday,if under'performance' we includemerits
such as resistanceto data sparsity.For example,Hall & Turlach(1997) suggestedinterp-
olationas a meansofreducingvariability ofconvolution-based methodsfornonparametric
regression. Mammen& Marron(1997) studieda class ofkernelregressionsmoothersthat
performs similarlyto local linearmethodsin asymptoticterms,but whichis less seriously
affectedby gaps in theset ofdesignpoints.Hall et al. (1998) discussedmethodsbased on
designtransformation and binningforovercomingdata sparsityproblems.Choi & Hall
(1998) suggesteda way of reducingbias in local linearregression.
Biometrikawas of course interestedin a wide range of methodsfor nonparametric
regression, notjust kernelones. Eubank & Speckman(1990) introduceda techniquefor
nonparamnetric regressionbased on locallyfitting both trigonometric functionsand poly-
nomials,the latterprincipallyto overcomeboundarybias problems.Kohn et al. (1992)
suggestedspline estimatorsfor nonparametricregressionwith time series errors,and
Ansleyet al. (1993) showedhow to incorporatepriorinformation into splineestimators.
Koenkeret al. (1994) developeda splineapproach to estimationof quantilefunctions.
Biometrikarespondedquicklyto interestin waveletmethods,notablyby publishing
Donoho & Johnstone's(1994) work on the near-optimalperformanceof thresholded
wavelet curve estimators.Percival (1995) suggestedways of analysing the wavelet
decompositionof the varianceof a timeseries.Bruce & Gao (1996) discusseda rangeof
propertiesof estimatesproducedby the WaveShrinkalgorithm.Antoniadiset al. (1997)

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparainetrics 151
developedwavelet-basedmodel selectionmethods.Abramovich& Silverman(1998) sug-
gestedwaveletmethodsforsolvingstatisticalinverseproblems.Clyde et al. (1998) used
Bayesian argumentsto motivatemethodsformultipleshrinkageestimationin wavelets.
Droge (1998) borrowedmethodologyfromrecentwavelettechniques,and showedthatit
leads to particularly effectiveorthogonalseriesmethodsforregression.Hurvich& Tsai
(1998) proposeda crossvalidationmethod,togetherwithAkaike'sinformation criterion,
forchoosingthe thresholdof a waveletestimator.
In manystatisticalproblems,smoothingis only a precursorto a rangeof othertech-
niques,forexamplehypothesistesting.Biometrika has playeda majorrolein thedevelop-
mentof smoothingmethodsfromthisviewpoint,too; examplesincludeworkof Azzalini
(1984), Azzalini et al. (1989), Munson & Jernigan(1989), Buckley(1991), Firthet al.
(1991), Lin (1991), Eubank & Hart (1993), Hjellvik& Tj0stheim(1995), Hurvich& Tsai
(1995) and Venkatraman& Begg (1996). A relatedproblemis that of identification of
componentsin nonparametric additiveregression,treatedbyHardle & Korostelev(1996).
The simpledeviceof kernelsmoothing,includinglocal linearmethods,has provenso
usefulthattodayit findsapplicationto almosteveryarea of statisticalanalysis,ranging:
fromincorporationof disease progressioninformation in survivalanalysis(Gray, 1994)
to reductionofdiscretisation bias in aggregatedlifetimes(Mullleret al., 1997); frommeth-
odologyspecifically fornonlineardynamicalsystems(Fan et al., 1996) to techniquesfor
estimatingchangepoints(Miller & Wang, 1990); and fromsystemidentification using
cross-sectionaldata (Abramson& Muller,1994) to regression withbinaryresponses(Chu
& Cheng,1995). Mulleret al. (1996) have suggestedBayesianapproachesto curvefitting
in nonparametric regression.
4. RESAMPLING METHODS
4 1. Thejackknife
The jackknife,introducedby Quenouille(1949) in the Journalof theRoyal Statistical
Society,was an earlysamplereusemethod,inspiringa substantialliteraturein Biometrika.
In thatfirstpaper,about reducingthebias ofan estimatorofserialcorrelation,Quenouille
suggesteddividingthe sample into two half-samples. In a subsequentBiometrikapaper
(Quenouille,1956) he proposedthemethodthatwe knowtodayas thejackknife, so named
by Tukey. Quenouille (1956) listedfour'desirableproperties'of an estimator,the last
beingthatit be unbiased.He thenwenton to show thateach successiveapplicationof
his methodreducesthe order of asymptoticbias by a factorof n-', wheren denotes
sample size, and to prove that asymptoticvarianceis not affected.He exploredsmall-
sample propertiesof his methodin a primitive'simulationstudy',workingthroughthe
calculationsand theirimplicationsfor a single sample drawn froma normal N(2, 1)
population when n= 10.
A significant
portionof earlyresearchon thejackknifeand its properties, forexample
Tukey's(1958) discoverythatvariancecould be estimatedusingthejackknife,was pub-
lishedin NorthAmerica.To thepresentday,however,Biometrika contributes substantially
to the developmentof variantsof the method,as well as to applicationsto a verywide
range of problemsin statistics.In particular,Durbin (1959) was the firstto apply
'Quenouille'smethod',as he termedit,to ratioestimation.
Rao (1965) and Rao & Webster(1966) also used 'Quenouille'smethod'forratio esti-
mation,showingthat the optimal samplingfractionis 1. Hutchison(1971) compared
'Quenouille'smethod'forratioestimationwithfiveotherprocedures,includingthenaive

152 PETER HALL
one. He foundin favourof two of the competitors, but notedthat'Quenouille'smethod'

was not far behind:'it generallyhas largervariance but reducesbias effectively when
n > 2'. In a computer-intensive age wherewe considerthejackknifeto be one of simplest
of all resamplingprocedures,it is of interestto note Hutchison's(1971) remarkthatthe
jackknife'is morecomplicatedto compute'thanits two main rivals.
Duncan & Layard (1973) applied thejackknife,usingthatname,to estimationof the
varianceof Fisher'sZ transformation of the correlationcoefficient, again usinga simu-
lation studyto compareits performance withthatof competitors. They foundin favour
ofthejackknife.Jones(1974) suggestedmethodsforapplyingthejackknifeto finitesamples
fromstratified populations.Miller's(1974) reviewofjackknifemethods,also publishedin
Biometrika, was of greatcontemporary value and is stillcitedtoday.
Gray et al. (1975) pointedout that the infinitesimaljackknife,introducedby Jaeckel,
can be viewedas a limitingcase of the generalisedjackknife.Sharot(1976) suggesteda
numberof variantsof the jackknifewhich 'sharpen'it, as he put it. Thorburn(1976)
discussedasymptoticproperties,particularlythe asymptoticvariance,of the jackknife
statistic.Hinkley(1977) studiedjackknifeconfidencelimits,and Hinkley(1978) suggested
further methodsforimprovingthejackknife;see also Knott & Frangos(1983). Frangos
(1980) proposed a minimumvariancecriterionforchoosinga memberof Sharot'sclass
ofmethods.Schucany& Sheather(1989) gave conditionsforconsistencyofthejackknife
estimatorof variance.
Methods forstratified samples,based on replication,resamplingor thejackknife,are
used particularly forthe purpose of varianceestimation.They have some of theirroots
in researchon experimental design,forexamplein Plackett& Burman's(1946) classic
Biometrikapaper on optimalmultifactorial experiments. They are also relatedto work
of Mahalanobis in the 1940s on assessing variabilityin field trials,and Hartigan's
contributions, discussedin ? 42, to subsampling.
Much variance estimationwork in stratifiedsamplingmay be fairlycategorisedas
'nonparametric', forexamplein termsofdistributional assumptions.The levelofstructure
thatis assumedis hardlymorerestrictive thantheconditionof'independent and identically
distributed' data thatis imposedin othercontextsas a prerequisite forstandardnonpara-
metricmethods.Work in the area that appeared in Biometrikaincludes,for example,
papers by Gupta & Nigam (1987) on methods for variance estimationinvolving
orthogonalarrays,Wu (1991) on balanced half-samplemethodsformixed orthogonal
arrays,Rao & Shao (1992) on jackknifevariance estimationfromsurveydata, Sitter
(1993) on extensionsof Wu's ideas to orthogonalmulti-arrays and Rao & Sitter(1995)
on linearisationsofjackknifevarianceestimators.
More generally,a greatdeal of contemporary work on the jackknifelies in an area
betweenparametricand nonparametric analysis.In particular,thejackknifeis a utilitarian
nonparametric tool forderivingvarianceestimateseven in parametricsettings.It is used
in thiscontextby Peddada & Patwardhan(1992), who proposedestimatesofthecovari-
ance matrixof estimatorsof regressioncoefficients in linear models. Frangos & Stone
(1984) suggestedboth jackknifeand bootstrapcrossvalidationmethodsforestimating
proportionality constantsin formulaeformeans. Stute & Wang (1994) used jackknife
methodsto estimatea Kaplan-Meier integral.
42. The bootstrap

Forsythe& Hartigan's(1970) work on subsamnpling methods,and relatedresearchof
e.g.Brethetal. ( 1978) and Maritz( 1979),are amongtheprecursors
Maritzand co-workers,

Centenary:
Biometrika Nonpcarcametrics 153
to bootstraptechniquespublishedin Biometrika. Maritz(1979) showedhow to use sub-
samplingtechniquesto constructrobustconfidence intervalsforlocation.The connections
betweenMaritz'sworkand thecontributions ofotherauthorson bootstrapmethodsover
thenexttwo decades are quite clear today.Interestingly, Maritz(1979) drewstronglinks
to Fisher's(1966) accountofpermutationtestingin a pairedcomparisonexperiment. To
this should be added work on randomisationtests,such as the methodsintroducedin
Biomnetrika by Pitman(1937), whichare also intrinsically nonparametric. Workof Blom
(1976), on thevarianceofincompleteU-statistics, is a precursor to contemporary research
on bootstrapsubsampling.
Efron'sextremely importantand influential introductionto bootstrapmethods,pub-
lishedin theAnnalsofStatisticsin 1979,vaultedstatisticalscienceforwardfromthesimple
but powerfulideas of scientistssuch as Mahalanobis, Quenouille,Tukey,Hartiganand
Maritz. Critically,Efron(1979) recognisedthe enormousadvantagesof exploitingthe
increasingavailabilityofcomputingpower;and he viewedresamplingfroma verygeneral
perspective, ratherthansimplyas a tool fordescribingvariability or constructing a confi-
dence region.He focusedinitiallyon the relationshipof generalresamplingmethodsto
thejackknife,and on theirusefulnessforquantifying a rangeof different interpretations
of 'error'.An earlydevelopmentof theseideas was his unifying treatmentof bootstrap,
jackknife,infinitesimal influence
jackknife, function and deltamethodsforestimating stan-
dard error,publishedin Biomnetrika (Efron,1981a). Efron's(1982) monographon the
bootstrap,thejackknifeand relatedresamplingtechniquesshouldalso be mentionedhere.
Methodsbased on Edgeworthexpansionhave provedto be powerfultools forcompar-
ing the performance of differentbootstrapmethods.It should be stressed,however,that
Edgeworth-expansion-based methodsare todayused in statisticslargelyto exploretheor-
eticalproblemsof less explicitlyanalyticalapproaches,ratherthan as directcompetitors
of the bootstrap.In the 1930s and 1940s therewas greaterinterestin expansionsfor
the specificpurpose of studyingeffectsthat departuresof the samplingdistribution
fromnormalityhave on thedistribution of a givenstatistic, and forexplicitcorrectionof
those errors. In thiscontext,Gayen's (1949) Biometrikapaper addressedthe effectof a
nonnormalsamplingdistribution on the distribution of the studentisedmean.
Beran's(1987) workon prepivoting to reducelevelerrorofconfidencesetswas a major
contribution to thedebateabout therelativeperformance ofthewidevarietyofbootstrap
methodsdiscussedduringthe1980s.Beranargued,and showedconvincingly, in a theoreti-
cal analysisbased on Edgeworthexpansion,thatpivotinghas potentiallya greatdeal to
offerin termsof coverageaccuracyof confidenceregions.
Ducharmeet al. (1985) suggestedbootstrapmethodsforconstructing confidencecones
fordirectionaldata. This problemis ofparticularinterestsince,unlikemoreconventional
cases, pivotalnesson the spherecannot be achieved simplyby rescaling.In particular,
studentising a statisticdefinedon the sphereremovesthatquantityfromthe sphere.The
work of Ducharmeet al. (1985) was the firstof severalcontributions to the solutionof
thisproblem.
In manyproblemsthe simplestway ofpivotingis usuallyto studentise, but even when
a convenientstandarddeviationestimateis available the techniquedoes not necessarily
producethehighlevelofpracticalperformance predictedby asymptotictheoreticalargu-
ments.The difficulty derivespartlyfromtherelatively highvariability oftypicalestimators
of variability,and fromthe factthat those estimatorsare used in the denominatorsof
ratios when constructing studentisedbootstrapstatistics.Tibshirani(1988) proposed a
novel alternativeapproach,based on a square-roottransformation whichin effectstan-

154 PETER HALL
dardisesforscale. The transformation involvessmoothing,and usuallyextrapolating, a

pointcloud calculatedfrompairs of bootstrappedstatisticsand corresponding standard
errorestimates.
Davison et al. (1986) suggestedthe balanced bootstrap,or balanced bootstrapresam-
pling,knownas Latin hypercuberesamplingin othercontexts.It reducesvariabilityof
thebootstrapMonte Carlo stepbyresamplingin sucha way thateach data value appears
the same numberof timesin the union of the resamples.In this way it is guaranteed
thatthegrandmean ofthebootstrapresamplesis identicalto thesamplemean.This fact
impliesthattheMonte Carlo formofanylinearapproximationto thestatisticis identical
to its sample form;thatis one way of explainingthe improvedefficiency offeredby the
balanced bootstrap.
Hinkley& Shi (1989) proposedusingimportancesamplingto reducethecomputational
labour ofthedouble bootstrap.Do & Hall (1991) introducedan empiricalformofimpor-
tancesampling,usingnumericalmethodsto replaceanalyticalstepsin moreconventional
approachesto the method.Hall (1989a) demonstrated first-order equivalenceof several
differentapproaches to efficient
bootstrap simulation, and Hall (1989b) suggested
bootstrapMonte Carlo methodsbased on antitheticsampling.
Davison & Hinkley(1988) and Feuerverger (1989) introducedsaddlepointmethodsfor
calculationofbootstrapquantities,and used examplesto demonstrate theirperformance.
Daniels & Young (1991) applied Davison & Hinkley'smethodsto the case of the stud-
entisedmean. DiCiccio et al. (1992) employedsimilartechniquesto constructdouble
bootstrapconfidence intervalsthatare particularly
competitive in termsofcoverageaccu-
racy and computationalspeed. Young & Daniels (1990) used themto correctforbias
whenestimating thesamplingdistribution ofa pivot.Jinget al. (1994) compareddifferent
saddlepointapproximationsto the exact distributionof a studentisedmean and to its
bootstrapapproximation.
Saddlepointmethodshaveofcoursea muchwiderrangeofapplicationin nonparametric
contemporarystatistics,and many of them have been brought to prominenceby
Biometrika; forillustrationwe mentiontheworkofWang (1993) on saddlepointmethods
in finite-populationproblems.
The iteratedbootstrap,or double bootstrap,can be a particularly usefulway of over-
comingshortcomings of conventionalbootstrapmethods.At the expenseonly of com-
putationallabour, ratherthan analyticalcalculation,it reliablycorrectsfor coverage
inaccuraciesof standardpercentilebootstrapmethods,withoutintroducingotherdiffi-
cultiessuchas excessivestochasticvariation.Papers publishedin Biometrika on thistopic
includethose of Hall & Martin(1988), who discussedtheoreticalfeaturesof the double
bootstrapand some ofits generalisations, and Booth & Hall (1994), who showedhow to
apportionthe total simulationload betweenthe firstand second stages of the double
bootstrap.
A major developmentof bootstrapmethodssince the mid-1980shas been theirappli-
cation to dependentdata. Biomnetrikahas participatedin thiswork,forexamplethrough
researchof Hall, Horowitz& Jing(1995) on choice of block size forthe block bootstrap.
Swanepoel & van Wyk(1986) introducedbootstrapmethodsforconstructing nonpara-
metricconfidencebands and intervalsforthe spectraldensityof an autoregression.
Developmentsofsmoothingtechniquesforthebootstrapincludeearlycontributions of
&
Silverman Young (1987) and Young (1988), who showedthatsmoothingcan produce
theoreticalimprovements in performance. Banks (1988) suggesteda histosplinemethod
for smnoothing the Bayesian bootstrap,with a numberof advantages over competing

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparametrics 155
Bayesian proposals.In the same Bayesian spirit,Boos & Monohan (1986) proposed a
methodforincorporating priorinformation into the bootstrap.Hu & Zidek (1995) sug-
gesteda variantof the bootstrapin whichresamplingis froma set of summandsin an
estimating function,ratherthanfromthesample.Parzenet al. (1994) introduceda pivotal
methodbased on estimating functions.
Contemporarybootstrapmethodshave much in common with other Monte Carlo
approachesto inference, includingMonte Carlo testing.Examplesin Biometrika include
the work of Besag & Clifford(1989, 1991), who discussed sequential estimation of
significancelevelsand the use of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods.
Hinkley& Schechtman(1987) introducedtechniquesforbootstrapstratification. Parr
(1983) comparedjackknife,bootstrapand delta methodestimatorsof bias and variance,
and Hinkley& Wei (1984) comparedbootstrapand jackknifeapproachesto studentising
whenconstructing confidenceintervals.Zhang et al. (1991) developedbootstraptestsfor
patternsin a covariancematrix,Davison & Hall (1992) discussedthe performance of
bootstrapmethodsforestimatingerrorratesin discriminant analysis,Ferretti& Romo
(1996) introducedbootstraptestsforunitrootsin first-order regressionmodels,Newton
(1996) establishedlarge-deviation resultsthatvalidatebothparametricand nonparametric
bootstrapmethodsin a rangeofphylogenetic problems,and Chuang & Lai (1998) intro-
duced resamplingmethodsforconstructing confidenceintervalsfortreatment effectsin
sequentialclinicaltrials.Applicationsofbootstrapmethodsto parametric problemsshould
also be noted,forexamplein theworkof Efron(1985).
4.3. Nonparametricforms oflikelihood

Hall (1987) describeda methodforconstructing likelihood-basedconfidenceregions,
usinga nonparametric densityestimatorto contoura pointcloud ofresampled,studentised
statisticvalues. In the followingyear,Owen (1988) discussedthe techniqueof empirical
likelihood,whichenjoysrelativelyexplicitconnectionsto parametricconceptsof likeli-
hood. Its influencehas been substantial,althoughnot necessarilyin waysthatone might
have initiallyexpected.As Owen was to show subsequently,empiricallikelihoodhas
particularvirtueswhen used to constructmultivariateconfidenceregions:in effect,it
producesa templatefortheshape oftheregion,and does not simplydescribetheregion's
scale. Whilethiscan be veryuseful,subsequentworkerswereto arguethattheshape was
not,to second order,thatof a likelihood-basedregion.
Anotherusefulaspectofempiricallikelihoodis its'implicitpivoting'feature:theasymp-
toticdistribution oftheempiricallikelihoodratiostatisticdoes not dependon unknowns.
Thus,empiricallikelihoodcan be particularly attractivein settingswheretransformation
to a pivotal statisticis difficult.
These include cases wherethe experimenter wishesto
constructa confidenceregionfor a ratio of two quantities,for example a correlation
coefficient.In otherproblems,however,the 'implicitpivoting'propertyis less important,
and, sinceit is achievedonly at the expenseof greatercomputationalburden,empirical
likelihoodmay not thenbe quite so attractive.It is unclearfromtheoreticalanalysisor
numericalsimulationthat the 'implicitpivoting'featureoffersparticularadvantages,in
termsof coverageor level accuracy,over moreconventionalpivoting;it appears not to,
in general.
Empiricallikelihoodis an inherently morerefinedtool thanthebootstrap,and so does
not so readilyextendto such a large class of problems.Nevertheless, in additionto its
importanceto the class of problemsfor which it was introduced,it has considerable

156 PETER HALL
didacticsignificance as a linkbetweencontemporary nonparametric methods,such as the

bootstrap,and parametrictechniques.
For example,the empiricallikelihoodratio statisticis maximnised by the bootstrap
estimator,whichis therefore the 'maximumempiricallikelihood'estimator.This obser-
vationpre-datesOwen's introduction oftheterm'empiricallikelihood',and maybe found
in Efron(1981a). Also, Owen's formofempiricallikelihoodis Bartlettcorrectable.These
issues,among others,have recentlybeen exploredin Biometrika by Baggerly(1998) and
Corcoran(1998). Lazar & Mykland(1998) evaluatedtheperformance ofempiricallikeli-
hood and 'dual likelihood',a methodintroducedby Mykland,relativeto ordinarypara-
metriclikelihood.In morerecentwork(Lazar & Mykland,1999) theyinvestigated similar
issues in the contextof nuisanceparameters,arguingthatempiricallikelihoodmay not
be Bartlettcorrectablein thatsetting.
Anothermajor contribution made by Owen's (1988) paper was to motivateinterestin
a rangeof nonparametric versionsof likelihood.In factEfron(1981b), in the Canadian
JournalofStatistics, had previouslynoteda verygeneralclass ofmethodsofwhichempiri-
cal likelihoodwas one. Alternativeapproachesincludethe bootstrappartiallikelihood
methodsuggestedin Biometrika byDavison et al. (1992), derivedthroughnestedbootstrap
calculations and kernel smoothing. Another competitor of empirical likelihood
is the likelihoodfunctionthat can be computedimplicitly froma bootstrapconfidence
interval.This approach was proposed by Efron(1993), who discussedits relationship
to profilelikelihood and other methods.Lee & Young (1999) explored versionsof
nonparametric likelihoodderivedfromStein'snotionof a least favourablefamily.
So-called'nonparametric maximumlikelihood'methods,forexamplethatsuggestedby
Grenanderin the 1950s forestimatinga densitysubjectto qualitativeconstraints, are
related.Recentexamplespublishedin Biometrika includeworkof: Lagakos et al. (1988)
on nonparametricanalysisof survivaldata; Dykstra & Feltz (1989) on estimationof
survivalfunctions;Gentleman& Geyer(1994) and B6hninget al. (1996) on analysisof
interval-censored data; and McClean & Devine (1995) on inferenceabout a lifetime
distribution fromincompleterenewaldata.
Nonparametricmaximumlikelihoodmethodsare relatedto Bayesian techniquesfor
nonparametric analysisin bioassay,forexamplethroughworkofKuo (1988), Gelfand&
Kuo (1991) and Ramgopal et al. (1993). Other work on bioassay,forexample that of
Miller(1973) and Miller& Halpern (1982), is relevantas well.Vardi (1989) derivedthe
nonparametricmaximumlikelihoodestimatorfor a lifetimedistributionin a renewal
context,and consideredgeneralisations and applications.Jones(1991) suggesteda density
estimationmethodbased on smoothinga nonparametric maximumlikelihoodestimator.
DiCiccio & Romano (1989) introducedmodifications to empiricallikelihoodbased on
adjustmentsto thesignedroot ofthestatistic.As wellas beingofinterestin its own right,
this approach, which mimickedmethodologythat is commonlyused in a parametric
setting,demonstratedanotheraspect of the close relationshipbetweenparametricand
nonparametricnotions of likelihood.DiCiccio et al. (1991) compared parametricand
empiricallikelihoodmethods.Chen & Quin (1993) suggestwaysofincorporating auxiliary
information into the calculationof empiricallikelihood,and provideda Bahadur-type
representation forempiricallikelihoodquantiles.Monti & Ronchetti(1993) compared
empiricallikelihoodand empiricalsaddlepointapproximations. Chen (1996) showedhow
to use empiricallikelihoodmethodsto constructconfidenceintervalsin the settingof a
densityestimation.Monti (1997) developeda versionofempiricallikelihoodappropriate
fortimeseries.

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparametrics 157
The ideas behindempiricallikelihoodare closelyrelatedto those that motivatethe
Kaplan-Meier estimatorand manyrelatedprocedures.They have been activelyinvesti-
gated in Biometrika,forexample throughwork of Flehingeret al. (1998) on survival
analysisin the contextof competingrisks.
5. OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO NONPARAMETRIC METHODS

Biometrika has playedan activerolein thedevelopmentofsmoothingmethodsin spatial
or sphericaldata setttings.In particular,Diggle (1975, 1977) suggestednonparametric
methodsforestimatingthe density,or intensity, of pointsdistributedin the plane, with
particularemphasison the need forrobustnessagainst departureof the point process
fromPoisson.Diggle et al. (1987) introduceda nonparametric estimatoroftheinteraction
functionforpairwise-interaction point processes.Fisher & Lee (1981, 1982) suggested
nonparametric methodsforinference fromdirectionaldata. Kernel methodsfordensity
estimationwith sphericaldata were studied by Hall et al. (1987). Spline fittingon a
d-dimensional sphere,subjectto constraints,
was discussedbyMardia et al. (1996). Van Es
& Hoogendoorn(1990) suggestedkernelmethodsfordensityestimationin stereological
problems.Ducharme& Milasevic(1987) introducedthe 'normalisedspatial median'.
Nonparametricmethods,particularly thoseinvolvingsmoothing,have becomeubiqui-
tous in imageanalysisand recoveryof spatial signals.Biometrika has been involvedhere
too, forexamplethroughtheworkof Buckley(1994) on thin-platesmoothingsplinesfor
imagedata. Buckley(1991) showedthatcusummethodshave optimality propertiesin the
contextof signaldetection.
Biometrikahas not publisheda great deal of work in the area of robust statistical
inference,perhapsreflecting researchemphasesin Britain.Exceptionsare work of Kent
(1982), who studiedrobustnesspropertiesof likelihoodratio teststatisticsin essentially
nonparametric and Field & Hampel (1982), who developedsaddlepointapproxi-
settings,
mationsto distributions of M-estimatorsof location.Reid (1981) suggestedmethodsfor
constructing confidenceintervalsforthe median survivaltime;the techniquesthereare
relatedto boththebootstrapand empiricallikelihood,thelatterconnectionbeingthrough
the argumentused to definethe Kaplan-Meier estimator.
Azzalini(1981) discussedkernelestimationof the distribution functionand quantiles,
and Skaug & Tj0stheim(1993) suggesteda nonparametrictest of serial independence
based on theempiricaldistribution Small& Murdoch(1993) discussednonpara-
function.
metricsolutionsto generalisedformsof the Neyman-Scottproblem.Ansley& Kohn
(1982) derivedthe Kalman filterfixed-interval smoothingalgorithmfromgeometrical
considerations.
A greatmanynonparametric statisticalmethods,manyof themsomewhatad hoc, are
based on minimising squared errorsin some sense.For example,manyof the techniques
noted in ? 2 may be derivedin thisway. Among othermethodswe mentionhere only
those based on the empirical characteristicfunction,such as the contributionof
Heathcote(1977).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
HelpfulcommentsbyLynneBillard,JohnMaindonald,Michael Martinand Alan Welsh

are gratefully
acknowledged.

158 PETER HALL
BIOMETRIKA REFERENCES
ABRAMOVICH, F. & SILVERMAN, B. W. (1998). Waveletdecompositionapproachesto statisticalinverseprob-
lems.Biometrika 85, 115-29.
ABRAMSON, I. & MULLER, H. G. (1994). Estimating directionfieldsin autonomousequationmodels,withan
applicationto systemidentification fromcross-sectional data. Biometrika 81, 663-72.
AITCHISON, J. & AITKEN, C. G. G. (1976). Multivariate binarydiscrimination bythekernelmethod.Bioinetr-ika
63, 413-20.
ANSLEY, C. F. & KOHN, R. (1982). A geometricalderivationof the fixedintervalsmoothingalgorithm.
Biometrika 69, 486-7.
ANSLEY, C. F. & KOHN, R. (1987). Efficient generalizedcross-validation forstatespace models.Bioinetrika
74, 139-48.
ANSLEY, C. F., KOHN, R. & WONG, C.-M. (1993). Nonparametric splineregressionwithpriorinformation.
Bioinetrika 80, 75-88.
ANTONIADIS, A., GIJBELS, I. & GRPGOIRE, G. (1997). Model selectionusingwaveletdecompositionand appli-
cations.Biometrika 84, 751-63.
AZZALINI, A. (1981). A note on the estimationof a distribution functionand quantilesby a kernelmethod.
Bioinetr-ika68, 326-8.
AZZALINI, A. (1984). Estimationand hypothesis testingof autoregressive timeseries.Biometr-ika 71, 85-90.
AZZALINI, A., BOWMAN, A. W. & HARDLE, W. (1989). On the use of nonparametric regressionformodel
checking.Biometr-ika 76, 1-11.
BAGGERLY, K. A. (1998). Empiricallikelihoodas a goodness-of-fit measure.Biornetirika 85, 535-47.
BANKS, D. L. (1988). Histosplinesmoothingthe Bayesianbootstrap.Biometrika 75, 673-84.
BERAN, R. (1987). Prepivoting to reducelevelerrorof confidencesets.Biomet7ika 74, 457-68.
BESAG, J. E. & CLIFFORD, P. (1989). GeneralizedMonte Carlo significance tests.Bioinetrika 76, 633-42.
BESAG, J. E. & CLIFFORD, P. (1991). SequentialMonte Carlo p-values.Biometrika 78, 301-4.
BLOM, G. (1976). Some properties of incompleteU-statistics. Biomnet7ika63, 573-80.
B6HNING, D., SCHLATTMANN, P. & DIETZ, E. (1996). Intervalcensoreddata: A note on the nonparametric
maximumlikelihoodestimatorof thedistribution function.Biometrika 83, 462-6.
Boos, D. D. & MONOHAN, J. F. (1986). Bootstrapmethodsusingpriorinformation. Biometrikca 73, 77-83.
BOOTH, J. G. & HALL, P. (1994). Monte Carlo approximationand the iteratedbootstrap.Biometrika 81,
331-40.
BOWMAN, A. W. (1980). A note on consistencyof the kernelmethodforthe analysisof categoricaldata.
BOWMAN, A. W. (1984). An alternative methodof cross-validationforthe smoothingof densityestimates.
BOWMAN, A. W., HALL, P. & PRVAN, T. (1998). Bandwidthselectionforthesmoothing ofdistribution functions.
BOWMAN, A. W., HALL, P. & TITTERINGTON, D. M. (1984). Cross-validation in nonparamnetricestimationof
probabilitiesand probabilitydensities.Biometrika 71, 341-51.
BRETH, M., MARITZ, J. S. & WILLIAMS, E. J.(1978). On distribution-freelower confidence limits for the mean
of a nonnegativerandomvariable.Biometrika 65, 529-34. Comment (1979), 66, 689.
BROWN, M. (1984). On thechoice of varianceforthelog ranktest.Biometr-ika 71, 65-74.
BRUCE, A. G. & GAO, H.-Y. (1996). Understanding WaveShrink:Varianceand bias estimation.Biometrika
83, 727-45.
BRUNK, H. D. (1978). Univariatedensityestimationby orthogonalseries.Biornetr-ika 65, 521-8.
BUCKLEY, M. J. (1991). Detectinga smooth signal: optimalityof cusum based procedures.Biornetrika 78,
253-62.
BUCKLEY, M. J. (1994). Fast computationof a discretizedthin-platesmoothingspline for image data.
Biomet7-ika 81, 247-58.
BUCKLEY, M. J. & EAGLESON, G. K. (1986). Assessinglarge sets of rankcorrelations. Biomnetrika 73, 151-7.
BUCKLEY, M. J. & EAGLESON, G. K. (1989). A graphicalmethodfor estimatingthe residual variance in
nonparametric regression.Biometrika 76, 203-10.
BUCKLEY, M. J.,EAGLESON, G. K. & SILVERMAN, B. W. (1988). The estimationof residualvariancein non-
parametricregression.Bioinetrika 75, 189-99.
BURMAN, P. (1989). A comparativestudyofordinary cross-validation,v-foldcross-validation and therepeated
learning-testing methods.Biomet7ika 76, 503-14.
BURMAN, P., CHOW,E. & NOLAN, D. (1994). A cross-validation methodfor dependentdata. Biometrika
81, 351-8.
BURMAN, P. & NOLAN, D. (1995). A generalAkaike-typecriterionformodel selectionin robustregression.
CHAMBERS, E. A. (1946). Statisticaltechniquesin applied psychology. Bio,netrika 33, 269-73.

Biometrika Nonparametrics
Centenary: 159
regressionusingfirstorder
CHAN, L.-Y. (1991). Optimaldesignforestimationof variancein nonparametric
differences.
Bioinetrika
78, 926-9.
CHEN, J. & QUIN, J. (1993). Empiricallikelihoodestimationforfinitepopulationsand theeffective
usage of
auxiliaryinformation.
Biometrika
80, 107-16.
intervalsfornonparametric
CHEN, S. X. (1996). Empiricallikelihoodconfidence densityestimation.
Biometr
ika
83, 329-41.
CHIU, S.-T. (1990). Why bandwidthselectorstendto choose smallerbandwidths,
and a remedy.Biometrika
77, 347-54.
erroron bandwidthselectionforkerneldensityestimation.
CHIU, S.-T. (1991). The effectof discretization
Biometrika
78, 436-41.
CHIU, S.-T. (1992). An automaticbandwidthselectorforkerneldensityestimation.Biometrika
79, 771-82.
CHOI,E. & HALL,P. (1998). On bias reductionin local linearsmoothing.Biornetrika 85, 333-45.
CHOI,E. & HALL, P. (1999). Data sharpeningas a preludeto densityestimation.Biometrika 86, 941-7.
CHU, C. K. & CHENG, K. F. (1995). Nonparametricregression estimatesusingmisclassifiedbinaryresponses.
CHUANG,C.-C. & LAI,T. L. (1998). Resamplingmethodsforconfidenceintervalsin groupsequentialtrials.
Bion1etrika85, 317-32.
CLYDE, M., PARMIGIANI,G. & VIDAKOVIC,B. (1998). Multipleshrinkageand subset selectionin wavelets.
COOLEY, C. A. & MAcEACHERN, S. N. (1998). Classificationvia kernelproductestimators.Biomnetr ika 85,
823-33.
CORCORAN,S. A. (1998). Bartlettadjustmentof empiricaldiscrepancystatistics. Biometrika 85, 967-72.
CROWLEY,J. (1974). A note on some recentlikelihoodsleadingto thelog rank test.Biomet7ika 61, 533-8.
DANIELS, H. E. & YOUNG, G. A. (1991). Saddlepointapproximationfor the studentizedmean, with an
applicationto thebootstrap.Biometrika 78, 169-79.
DAVID, S. T., KENDALL, M. G. & STUART,A. (1951). Some questionsof distribution in the theoryof rank
correlation.Biometrika 38, 131-40.
DAVISON,A. C. & HALL, P. (1992). On the bias and variabilityof bootstrapand cross-validation estimates
of errorratein discrimination analysis.Biometrika 79, 279-84.
DAVISON, A. C. & HINKLEY, D. V. (1988). Saddlepointapproximationsin resamplingmethods.Biometiika
75, 417-31.
DAVISON,A. C., HINKLEY, D. V. & SCHECHTMAN,E. (1986). Efficient bootstrapsimulation.Biometrika73,
555-66.
DAVISON,A. C., HINKLEY, D. V. & WORTON,B. J. (1992). Bootstraplikelihoods.Biometrika 79, 113-30.
DICIccIo, T. J., HALL, P. & ROMANO,J. P. (1991). Comparison of parametricand empiricallikelihood
functions.Biometrika 76, 465-76.
DICIccIo, T. J.,MARTIN,M. A. & YOUNG, G. A. (1992). Fast and accurateapproximatedouble bootstrap
confidenceintervals.Biomet7ika 79, 285-95.
DICIccIo, T. J.& ROMANO, J.P. (1989). On adjustmentsbased on thesignedrootoftheempiricallikelihood
ratiostatistic.Biometrika 76, 447-56.
62, 39-48.
DIGGLE, P. J. (1975). Robust density estimation using distance methods. Biom7>etrika
DIGGLE, P. J. (1977). A note on robustdensityestimationforspatial pointpatterns.Biometrika 64, 91-5.
DIGGLE, P. J.,GATES,D. J. & STIBBARD,A. (1987). A nonparametric estimator for pairwise-interactionpoint
processes.Biometrika 74, 763-70.
Do, K.-A. & HALL, P. (1991). On importanceresamplingforthe bootstrap.Biornetrika 78, 161-7.
DONOHO, D. L. & JOHNSTONE,I. M. (1994). Ideal spatial adaptation by waveletshrinkage.Biomnetrika 81,
425-55.
DROGE, B. (1998). Minimax regret analysis of orthogonal series regression estimation: selection versus
shrinkage.Biornetrika
85, 631-43.
DUCHARME, G. R., JHUN, M., ROMANO,J. P. & TRUONG, K. N. (1985). Bootstrap confidence cones for
directionaldata. Biometr
ika 72, 637-45.
DUCHARME,G. R. & MILASEVIC,P. (1987). Spatial medianand directionaldata. Biornetrika
74, 212-5.
DUNCAN,G. T. & LAYARD,M. W. J.(1973). A Monte-Carlostudyofasymptotically robusttestsforcorrelation
coefficients.
Biometrika
60, 551-8.
DURBIN, J. (1959). A note on the applicationof Quenouille'smethodof bias reductionto the estimationof
46, 477-80.
ratios.Biometrika
DYKSTRA,D. A. & FELTZ, C. J.(1989). Nonparametric
maximumlikelihoodestimationofsurvivalfunctions
witha generalstochasticorderingand its dual. Biornetrika
76, 331-41.
estimatesofstandarderror:thejackknife,
EFRON,B. (198 la). Nonparametric thebootstrapand othermethods.
Biometrika
68, 589-99.
EFRON, B. (1985). Bootstrapconfidenceintervalsfora class of parametricproblems.Biometrika 72, 45-58.
EFRON, B. (1993). Bayes and likelihoodcalculations from confidence intervals. Biomet7ika 80, 3-26.

160 PETER HALL
EUBANK, R. L. & HART, J.D. (1993). Commonalityofcusum,von Neumannand smoothing-based goodness-
of-fittests.Biometrika 80, 89-98.
EUBANK, R. L. & SPECKMAN, P. (1990). Curve fitting by polynomial-trigonometric regression.Biometrika
77, 1-10.
FADDY, M. J. & JONES, M. C. (1998). Semiparametric smoothingfordiscretedata. Biometrika 85, 131-8.
FAHRMEIR, L. (1994). Dynamicmodellingand penalizedlikelihoodestimation fordiscretetimesurvivaldata.
FAHRMEIR, L. & KLINGER, A. (1998). A nonparametric multiplicativehazardmodelforeventhistoryanalysis.
FAN, J. & YAO, Q. (1998). Efficient estimationof conditionalvariancefunctionsin stochasticregression.
FAN, J.,YAO, Q. & TONG, H. (1996). Estimationofconditionaldensitiesand sensitivity measuresin nonlinear
dynamicalsystems.Biometrika 83, 189-206.
FERRETTI, N. & RoMo, J. (1996). Unit root bootstraptestsforAR(1) models.Biometrika 83, 849-60.
FEUERVERGER, A. (1989). On theempiricalsaddlepointapproximation. Biometrika 76, 457-64.
FIELD, C. A. & HAMPEL, F. R. (1982). Small-sampleasymptoticdistributions of M-estimatorsof location.
FIELLER, E. C., HARTLEY, H. 0. & PEARSON, E. S. (1957). Testsforrankcorrelationcoefficients. I. Bionietrika
44, 470-81.
FIELLER, E. C. & PEARSON, E. S. (1961). Testsforrankcorrelationcoefficients. II. Biometrika 48, 29-40.
FIRTH, D., GLOSUP, J. & HINKLEY, D. V. (1991). Model checkingwith nonparametric curves.Biometrika
78, 245-52.
FISHER, N. I. & LEE, A. J. (1981). Nonparametricmeasuresof angular-linearassociation.Biometrika 68,
629-36.
FISHER, N. I. & LEE, A. J. (1982). Nonparametricmeasuresof angular-angularassociation.Biometrika 69,
315-21.
FLEHINGER, B. J., REISER, B. & YASCHIN, E. (1998). Survivalwithcompetingrisksand masked causes of
failure.Biometrika 85, 151-64.
FORSYTHE, A. & HARTIGAN, J.A. (1970). Efficiency of confidenceintervalsgeneratedby repeatedsubsample
calculations.Biometrika 57, 629-39.
FRANGOS, C. C. (1980). Varianceestimationforthe second-order jackknife.Biometrika 67, 715-8.
FRANGOS, C. C. & STONE, M. (1984). On jackknife, cross-validatoryand classical methodsof estimatinga
proportionwithbatchesof different sizes. Biometrika 71, 361-6.
GASSER, T. & ENGEL, J.(1990). The choice ofweightsin kernelregression estimation.Biometrika 77, 377-81.
GASSER, T., SROKA, L. & JENNEN-STEINMETZ, C. (1986). Residual varianceand residualpatternin nonlinear
regression.Biometrika 73, 625-33.
GAYEN, A. K. (1949). The distribution of'Student's't in randomsamplesofany size drawnfromnon-normal
universes.Biometrika 36, 353-69.
GELFAND, A. E. & Kuo, L. (1991). Nonparametric Bayesianbioassayincludingorderedpolytomousresponse.
GENTLEMAN, R. & GEYER, C. J. (1994). Maximum likelihoodforintervalcensoreddata: consistencyand
computation. Biometrika 81, 618-23.
GOETGHEBEUR, E. & RYAN, L. (1990). A modifiedlog ranktestforcompetingriskswithmissingfailuretype.
GoOD, I. J.& GASKINS, R. A. (1971). Nonparametric roughnesspenaltiesforprobabilitydensities.Biometrika
58, 255-77.
GRAY, R. J. (1994). A kernelmethodforincorporating information on disease progressionin theanalysisof
survival.Biometrika 81, 527-39.
GRAY, R. J., SCHUCANY, W. R. & WATKINS, T. A. (1975). On the generalizedjackknifeand its relationto
statisticaldifferentials.
GUPTA,V. K. & NIGAM, A. K. (1987). Mixed orthogonalarraysforvarianceestimationwithunequal numbers
of primaryselectionsper stratum.Biometrika 74, 735-42.
HALL, P. (1981). On nonparametric binarydiscrimination. Biometrika68, 287-94.
HALL, P. (1982). Cross-validation in densityestimation.Biomnetrika69, 383-90.
HALL, P. (1987). On the bootstrapand likelihood-based confidenceregions.Biometrika 74, 481-93.
HALL, P. (1989a). On efficientbootstrapsimulation.Biometrika 76, 613-7.
HALL, P. (1989b). Antitheticsamplingforthe bootstrap.Biometrika 76, 713-24.
HALL, P. (1990). On the bias of variablebandwidthcurveestimators. Biometrika 77, 529-35.
HALL, P. & HANNAN, E. J.(1988). On stochasticcomplexity and nonparametric densityestimation.Biometrika
75, 705-14.
HALL, P., HOROWITZ, J. L. & JING, B. Y. (1995). On blockingrulesforthe bootstrapwithdependentdata.

Biometrika Nonparametrics
Centenary: 161
HALL, P., KAY, J. W. & TITTERINGTON, D. M. (1990). Asymptotically optimal difference-basedestimation of
variance in nonparametric regression. Biometrika 77, 521-8.
HALL, P. & MARRON, J. S. (1990). On variance estimation in nonparametric regression. Biometrika 77, 415-9.
HALL, P., MARRON, J. S. & TITTERINGTON, D. M. (1995). On partial local smoothing rules forcurve estimation.
Biometrika
82, 575-87.
HALL, P. & MARTIN, M. A. (1988). On bootstrapresamplingand iteration.Biomlietrika
75, 661-71.
HALL, P., PARK, B. U. & TURLACH, B. A. (1998). A note on design transformationand binning in non-
parametric curve estimation. Biometrika 85, 469-76.
HALL, P., SHEATHER, S. J., JONES, M. C. & MARRON, J. S. (1991). On optimal data-based bandwidth selection
in kernel density estimation. Biornetrika78, 263-9.
HALL, P. & TURLACH, B. A. (1997). Enhancing convolution and interpolation methods for nonparametric
regression.
Biometrika
84, 779-90.
HALL, P. & WAND, M. P. (1988). On nonparametric discrimination using density differences.Bioinetrika
75, 541-7.
HALL, P., WATSON, G. S. & CABRERA, J. (1987). Kernel density estimation with spherical data. Biornetrika
74, 751-62.
HARDLE, W. & KOROSTELEV, A. (1996). Search for significantvariables in nonparametric additive regression.
83, 451-9.
Biometrika
HARDLE, W. & MARRON, J. S. (1985). Asymptotic nonequivalence of some bandwidth selectors in non-
parametric regression. Biometrika 72, 481-4.
HEATHCOTE, C. R. (1977). The integrated squared error estimation of parameters. Biomet7ika 64, 255-64.
HERRMANN, E., GASSER, T. & KNEIP, A. (1992). Choice of bandwidth for kernel regression when residuals are
correlated.Bioinetrika
79, 783-95.
HINKLEY, D. V. (1977). Jackknifeconfidence limits using Student t approximations. Biometrika 64, 21-8.
Correction(1978) 65, 677.
HINKLEY, D. V. (1978). Improving the jackknife with special referenceto correlation estimation. Biometrika
65, 13-22.
HINKLEY, D. V. & SCHECHTMAN, E. (1987). Conditional bootstrap methods in the mean-shiftmodel. Bioinetrika
74, 85-93.
HINKLEY, D. V. & SHI, S. (1989). Importance sampling and the nested bootstrap. Biometrika 76, 435-46.
HINKLEY, D. V. & WEI, B. C. (1984). Improvement of jackknife confidence limits. Bioinetrika
71, 331-9.
HJELLVIK, V. & TJ0STHEIM, D. (1995). Nonparametrictestsoflinearityfortimeseries.Biometrika
82, 351-68.
H5FFDING, W. (1947). On the distribution of the rank correlation coefficient- when the variates are not
Biometrika
independent. 34, 183-96.
HOOVER, D. R., RICE, J. A., Wu, C. 0. & YANG, L.-P. (1998). Nonparametric smoothing estimates of time-
varying coefficientmodels with longitudinal data. Biomet7ika 85, 809-22.
Hu, F. & ZIDEK, J. V. (1995). A bootstrap based on the estimating equations of the linear model. Biometrika
82, 263-75.
HUANG, Y. & LouIs, T. A. (1998). Nonparametric estimation of the joint distribution of survival and mark
85, 785-98.
variables.Biomnet7ika
HURVICH,C. M. & TSAI, C.-L. (1995). Relative rates of convergence for efficientmodel selection criteria in
linear regression. Bioinetrika 82, 418-25.
HURVICH, C. M. & TSAI, C.-L. (1998). A crossvalidatory AIC for hard wavelet thresholding in spatially
adaptive functionestimation. Bioinet7ika 85, 701-10.
HUTCHINSON, M. C. (1971). A Monte Carlo comparison of some ratio estimators. Biometr-ika58, 313-21.
JING, B.-Y., FEUERVERGER, A. & ROBINSON, J. (1994). On the bootstrap saddlepoint approximations.
ika 81, 211-5.
Biometr
JOHNSON, N. L. (1949). Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of translation. Biometrika36,
149-76.
JONES, H. L. (1974). Jackknifeestimation of functionsof stratum means. Biomnetrika
61, 343-8.
78, 511-9.
JONES, M. C. (1991). Kernel density estimation for length biased data. Biometrika
JONES, M. C., LINTON, 0. & NIELSEN, J. P. (1995). A simple bias reduction method for density estimation.
Bioinetrika
82, 327-38.
JONES, M. C., SAMIUDDIN, M., AL-HARBEY, A. H. & MAATOUK, T. A. H. (1998). The edge frequencypolygon.
85, 235-9.
Biomet7ika
KAMAT, A. R. (1956). A two-sample distribution-freetest. With an addendum by D. E. Barton. Biometrika
43, 377-87. Addendum386-7.
KENDALL, M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 81-93.
KENDALL, M. G. (1942). Partialrankcorrelation.Biometrika 32, 277-83.
KENDALL, M. G. (1945). The treatmentof tiesin rankingproblems.Biornetrika 33, 239-51.
KENDALL, M. G. (1947). The varianceof - whenboth rankingscontainties.Biometrika 34, 297-8.
KENDALL, M. G. (1949). Rank and product-moment correlation.Biometrika 36, 177-93.

162 PETER HALL
KENDALL, M. G. & BABINGTONSMITH,B. (1940). On themethodofpairedcomparisons. Biometrika
31, 324-45.
KENT, J. T. (1982). Robust propertiesof likelihoodratio tests.Biometrika
69, 19-27.
KNOTT, M. & FRANGOS,C. C. (1983). Variance estimationforthejackknifeusing von Mises expansions.
Biometrika
70, 501-4.
KOENKER,R., NG, P. & PORTNOY,S. (1994). Quantile smoothingsplines.Biometrika
81, 673-80.
KOHN, R., ANSLEY,C. F. & WONG, C.-M. (1992). Nonparametric
splineregression
withautoregressive
moving
averageerrors.Biometrika
79, 335-46.
KUK, A. Y. C. (1993). A kernelmethodforestimating
finitepopulationdistribution
functions
usingauxiliary
information. Biometrika80, 385-92.
Kuo, L. (1988). Linear Bayes estimatorsof thepotencycurvein bioassay.Biometrika 75, 91-6.
LAGAKOS,S. W., BARRAJ,L. M. & DE GRUTTOLA, V. (1988). Nonparametricanalysisof truncatedsurvival
data, withapplicationsto AIDS. Biometrika 75, 515-23.
LAZAR, N. & MYKLAND, P. A. (1998). An evaluationof thepowerand conditionality propertiesofempirical
likelihood.Biometrika 85, 523-34.
LAZAR, N. & MYKLAND, P. A. (1999). Empiricallikelihoodin thepresenceofnuisanceparameters. Biomet7-ika
86, 203-11.
LEE, S. M. S. & YOUNG, G. A. (1999). Nonparametriclikelihoodratio confidenceintervals.Biomnet7-ika
86, 107-18.
LENK, P. J. (1991). Towardsa practicableBayesiannonparametric densityestimator.Bioinetrika78, 531-43.
LEONARD,T. (1973). A Bayesianmethodforhistograms. Biometrika60, 297-308.
LIN, D. Y. (1991). Nonparametric sequential testingin clinical trials with incomplete multivariateobservations.
LIN,D. Y. (1992). Sequentiallog ranktestsadjustingforcovariantswiththeacceleratedlifemodel.Biometrika
79, 523-9.
LIN, D. Y. & YING, Z. (1993). A simplenonparametric estimatorof the bivariatesurvivalfunctionunder
univariatecensoring.Biometrika 80, 573-81.
LOMBARD,F. (1987). Rank tests for changepoint problems. Biomet7-ika 74, 615-24.
MAMMEN,E. & MARRON,J. S. (1997). Mass recentred kernel smoothers. Biometr-ika 84, 765-77.
MARDIA, K. V., KENT, J. T., GOODALL, C. R. & LITTLE, J. A. (1996). Kriging and splines with derivative
information. Bioinetrika 83, 207-21. Correction(1998), 85, 505.
MARITZ, J. S. (1979). A note on exact robustconfidence intervalsforlocation.Biometrika 66, 163-6.
MCCLEAN, S. & DEVINE, C. (1995). A nonparametric maximumlikelihoodestimatorforincompleterenewal
data. Biometrika 82, 791-803.
MEHTA,C. R., PATEL, N. R. & WEI, L. J.(1988). Constructing exactsignificance testswithrestrictedrandomiz-
ation rules.Biometrika 75, 295-302.
MIELKE, P. W., BERRY, K. J., BROCKWELL, P. J. & WILLIAMS, J. S. (1981). A class of nonparametric tests
based on multiresponse permutationprocedures.Biometrika 68, 720-4.
MILLER, R. G. (1973). Nonparametric estimatorsof themean tolerancein bioassay.Biometr-ika 60, 535-42.
MILLER, R. G. (1974). The jackknife a review.Biometrika 61, 1-16.
MILLER, R. G. & HALPERN,J. (1982). Regressionwithcensoreddata. Biometr-ika 69, 521-31.
MONTI, A. C. (1997). Empiricallikelihoodconfidenceregionsin timeseriesmodels.Biometrika 84, 395-405.
MONTI, A. C. & RONCHETTI, E. (1993). On the relationship between empirical likelihood and empirical
saddlepoint approximation for multivariate M-estimators. Bionzetrika 80, 329-38.
MORAN,P. A. P. (1948). Rank correlationand product-moment correlation.Biomnetrika 35, 203-6.
MULLER, H.-G. (1991). Smooth optimumkernelestimatorsnear endpoints.Biometrika 78, 521-30.
MULLER, H.-G. & STADTMULLER,U. (1988). Detecting dependencies in smooth regression models. Biometrika
75, 639-50.
MOLLER, H.-G., STADTMULLER,U. & SCHMITT, T. (1987). Bandwidthchoice and confidenceintervalsfor
derivatives of noisy data. Biometrika 74, 743-9.
MULLER, H. G. & WANG, J.-L. (1990). Nonparametricanalysis of changes in hazard rates for censored
survival data: An alternative to change-point models. Biometrika 77, 305-14.
MULLER, H. G., WANG, J.-L. & CAPRA, W. B. (1997). From lifetablesto hazard rates:The transformation
approach.Biometrika 84, 881-92.
MULLER, P., ERKANLI, A. & WEST, M. (1996). Bayesian curve fitting using multivariatenormalmixtures.
Bionzetrika 83, 67-79.
MUNSON, P. J. & JERNIGAN, R. W. (1989). A cubic splineextensionof the Durbin-Watsontest.Bioinetrika
76, 39-47.
NEWTON, M. A. (1996). Bootstrapping phylogenies: Large deviations and dispersion effects.Biometrika 83,
315-28.
NEWTON, M. A. & ZHANG, Y. (1999). A recursivealgorithmfornonparametric
analysiswithmissingdata.
Biometrika86, 15-26.

Biometrika
Centenary:
Nonparametrics 163
NIELSEN,J. P. (1999). Super-efficient markerinformation.
hazard estimationbased on high-quality Biometrika
86, 227-32.
OAKES, D. (2001). BiometrikaCentenary:Survivalanalysis.Biometrika88, 99-142.
OWEN, A. (1988). Empiricallikelihoodratiointervalsfora singlefunctional. 75, 237-49.
Biometrika
PARR, W. C. (1983). A note on thejackknife,the bootstrapand the delta methodestimatorsof bias and
variance.Biometrika
70, 719-22.
PARZEN, M. I., WEI, L. J. & YING, Z. (1994). A resamplingmethodbased on pivotalestimating
functions.
Biomnetrika
81, 341-50.
A. K. (1991). Efficientbias correctednonparametricspectral density
PAWITAN,Y. & GANGOPADHYAY,
estimation.Biornetrika
78, 825-32.
III. Distributionof the
PEARSON,E. S. & SNow, B. A. S. (1962). Tests for rank correlationcoefficients.
transformed
Kendall coefficient.
Biornetrika
49, 185-91.
PEARSON,K. (1902a). On the systematic
fittingof curvesto observationsand measurements,
I. Biometrika
1, 265-303.
PEARSON,K. (1902b). On the systematic of curvesto observationsand measurements,
fitting II. Biometrika
2, 1-23.
PEDDADA, S. D. & PATWARDHAN, varianceestimatorsin linearmodels.Biometrika79,
G. (1992). Jackknife
654-7.
PERCIVAL,D. P. (1995). On estimationof thewaveletvariance.Biometrika 82, 619-3 1.
59, 472-5.
PETO, R. (1972). Rank tests of maximal power against Lehmann-type alternatives. Biometrika
PIKOUNIS,V. B. & RAO,P. V. (1997). Linear rank testsforthe nonresponders problemwithcensoreddata.
Biometrika
81, 691-9.
testswhichcan be applied to samplesfromany population.III: The
PITMAN,E. J. G. (1937). Significance
analysisof variancetests.Biornetrika
29, 322-35.
PLACKETT,R. L. & BURMAN,J. P. (1946). Designs of optimummultifactorial
experiment.
Biomnetrika
33,
305-25.
QUENOUILLE,M. (1956). Notes on bias in estimation.Biometr-ika
43, 353-60.
RAMGOPAL,P., LAUD, P. W. & SMITH, A. F. M. (1993). NonparametricBayesian bioassay with prior
on theshape of thepotencycurve.Biometrika
constraints 80, 489-98.
RAO, J. N. K. (1965). A note on estimationof ratiosby Quenouille'smethod.Biometrika
52, 647-9.
RAO, J.N. K. & SHAO, J.(1992). Jackknife varianceestimationwithsurveydata underhot deck imputation.
79, 811-22.
Biometrika
RAO, J. N. K. & SITTER, R. R. (1995). Varianceestimationundertwo-phasesamplingwithapplicationto
imputation for missing data. Biometrika
82, 453-60.
RAO, J.N. K. & WEBSTER,J.(1966). On twomethodsofbias reductionin theestimationofratios.Biornetrika
53, 571-7.
RAY,B. K. & TSAY,R. S. (1997). Bandwidthselectionforkernelregressionwithlong-rangedependenterrors.
REID, N. (1981). Estimatingthe mediansurvivaltime.Biometrika 68, 601-8.
ROBINS,J.& TSIATIS, A. A. (1992). Semiparametric estimationofan acceleratedfailuretimemodelwithtime-
dependentcovariates.Biometrika 79, 311-9.
SAMIUDDIN, M. & EL-SAYYAD, G. M. (1990). On nonparametric kerneldensityestimates.Biometrika77,
865-74.
SCHOENFELD,D. (1981). The asymptotic propertiesofnonparametric testsforcomparingsurvivaldistributions.
SCHUCANY,W. R. & SHEATHER,S. J. (1989). JackknifingR-estimators. Biometr-ika 76, 393-8.
SCOTT, D. W. (1979). On optimaland data-basedhistograms. Biometrika 66, 605-10.
SCOTT, D. W. & WAND, M. P. (1991). Feasibilityof multivariate densityestimates.Biometrika 78, 197-205.
SEIFERT,B., GASSER,T. & WOLF,A. (1993). Nonparametric estimationofresidualvariancerevisited. Biometrika
80, 373-83.
SHAROT,T. (1976). Sharpeningthejackknife.Biomet7ika 63, 315-21.
SHIBATA,R. (1981). An optimalselectionof regressionvariables.Biometrika 68, 45-54.
SHIRAHATA, S. (1981). Intraclassranktestsforindependence.Biometrika 68, 451-6.
SILVERMAN, B. W. (1978). Choosing the window widthwhenestimatinga density.Biometrika 65, 1-11.
SILVERMAN, B. W. & YOUNG, G. A. (1987). The bootstrap:To smoothor notto smooth?Biomnet7rika 74,469-79.
SINGH, R. S. (1979). Mean squared errorsofestimatesofa densityand itsderivatives. Biometrika 66, 177-80.
SITTER,R. R. (1993). Balanced repeatedreplications based on orthogonalmulti-arrays. Biometrika 80, 211-21.
SKAUG, H. J. & TJ0STHEIM,D. (1993). A nonparametric test of serial independencebased on the empirical
distribution function.Biometrika 80, 591-602.
SMALL, C. G. & MURDOCH, D. J. (1993). NonparametricNeyman-Scottproblems:telescopingproduct
methods.Biometrika
80, 763-79.
SPENCER,J. (1904). Graduationof a sicknesstable by Makeham's hypothesis.
Biometrika
3, 52-7.

164 PETER HALL
STONE,M. (1974a). Cross-validationand multinomialprediction.Biometrika 61, 509-15.
STONE,M. (1977). Asymptotics forand againstcross-validation. Biometrika 64, 29-35.
STUTE,W. & WANG,J.-L.(1994). The jackknifeestimateof a Kaplan-Meier integral.Bioinetrika 81, 602-6.
SUKHATME, B. V. (1958). A two-sampledistribution-free testforcomparingvariances.Biomet7ika 45, 544-8.
SUKHATME, B. V. (1960). Power of some two-samplenon-parametric tests.Biomet7ika 47, 355-62.
SUN,J. (1991). Significance levelsin exploratoryprojectionpursuit.Biometrika 78, 759-69.
SWANEPOEL, J. W. H. & VANWYK,J.W. J.(1986). The bootstrapapplied to powerspectraldensityfunction
estimation.Biometrika 73, 135-41.
TARONE, R. E. (1975). Testsfortrendin lifetable analysis.Biomet7ika 62, 679-82.
TARONE, R. E. & WARE,J. (1977). On distribution-free testsforequalityofsurvivaldistributions. Bioinetrika
64, 156-60.
TAYLOR, C. C. (1987). Akaike'sinformation criterionand the histogram.Biomnet7-ika 74, 636-9.
TAYLOR, C. C. (1989). Bootstrapchoice of thesmoothingparameterin kerneldensityestimation.Biometrika
76, 705-12.
THOMPSON, A. M., KAY,J. W. & TITTERINGTON, D. M. (1991). Noise estimationin signalrestorationusing
regularization. Biometrika 78, 475-88.
THORBURN,D. (1976). Some asymptoticpropertiesofjackknifestatistics. Bio7netrika 63, 305-13.
THORBURN,D. (1986). A Bayesianapproach to densityestimation.Biometrika 73, 65-76.
TIBSHIRANI,R. J. (1988). Variancestabilizationand the bootstrap.Biomnetrika 75, 433-44.
TITTERINGTON, D. M. (1977). Analysisofincompletemultivariate binarydata bythekernelmethod.Biomet7rika
64, 455-60.
TUTZ,G. (1986). An alternativechoice ofsmoothingparameterforkernel-baseddensityestimatesin discrete
discriminant analysis.Biometrika 73, 405-11.
UZUNOGULLARI,U. & WANG,J.-L. (1992). A comparisonof hazard rate estimatorsforlefttruncatedand
rightcensoreddata. Biometrika 79, 297-310.
VAN Es, B. & HOOGENDOORN,A. (1990). Kernel estimationin Wicksell'scorpuscleproblem.Biomiietrika
77, 139-45.
VARDI, Y. (1989). Multiplicativecensoring,renewal processes,deconvolutionand decreasingdensity:
Nonparametricestimation.Biometrika 76, 751-61.
VENKATRAMAN, E. S. & BEGG,C. B. (1996). A distribution-free procedureforcomparingreceiveroperating
characteristic curvesfroma pairedexperiment. Biomnetrika83, 835-48.
VISSIER,M. (1996). Nonparametricestimationof the bivariatesurvivalfunctionwith an application to
verticallytransmitted AIDS. Bioinetrika 83, 507-18.
WALDEN, A. T. & WHITE,R. E. (1990). Estimatingthe statisticalbandwidthof a time series.Biometiika
77, 699-707.
WANG,M.-C. & VANRYZIN, J. (1981). A class of smoothestimatorsfordiscretedistributions. Biomnetrika
68, 301-9.
WANG,S. (1993). Saddlepointexpansionsin finitepopulationproblems.Biometrika 80, 583-90.
WANG,W. & WELLS,M. T. (1997). Nonparametricestimatorsof the bivariatesurvivalfunctionunder
simplified censoringconditions.Biometrika 84, 863-80.
WATSON, G. S. & LEADBETTER,M. R. (1964). Hazard analysisI. Biomlietrika 51, 175-84.
WEI,L. J.,YING, Z. & LIN, D. Y. (1990). Linear regressionanalysisof censoredsurvivaldata based on rank
tests.Biometrika 77, 845-51.
WELLS,M. T. (1994). Nonparametrickernelestimationin countingprocesseswithexplanatoryvariables.
WEST, M. (1991). Kerneldensityestimationand marginalization consistency. Biomnet7ika 78, 421-5.
WHEELER,S. & WATSON, G. S. (1964). A distribution-freetwo-sampleteston a circle.Biom1etr-ika 51, 256-7.
Wu, C. F. J.(1991). Balanced repeatedreplicationsbased on mixedorthogonalarrays.Biomet7ika 78, 181-8.
YOUNG, G. A. (1988). A note on bootstrapping thecorrelationcoefficient. Bioinet7ika 75, 370-3.
YOUNG, G. A. & DANIELS, H. E. (1990). Bootstrapbias. Biometrika 77, 179-85.
ZHANG,J.,PANTULA,S. G. & Boos, D. D. (1991). Robustmethodsfortestingthepatternofa singlecovariance
matrix.Biometrika 78, 787-95.
OTHER REFERENCES
CLEVELAND, E. S. & LOADER, C. L. (1996). Smoothingbylocal regression:
principlesand methods.In Statistical
Theoryand Computational Aspectsof Smoothing, Ed. W. Hardle and M. G. Schimek,pp. 10-49. Vienna:
Physica-Verlag.
Cox, D. R. (1972). Regressionmodelsand lifetables(withDiscussion).J. R. Statist.Soc. B 74, 187-200.
EFRON, B. (1979). Bootstrapmethods:anotherlook at thejackknife.Ann.Statist.7, 1-26.

Centenary:
Biometrika Nonparametrics 165
standarderrorsand confidenceintervals(withDiscussion).Can. J. Statist.
EFRON, B. (1981b). Nonparametric
9, 139-72.
EFRON, B. (1982). The Jackknife,theBootstrapand OtherResamplingPlans. Philadelphia:SIAM.
FISHER, R. A. (1966). The DesignofExperiments,8th ed. Edinburgh:Oliver& Boyd.
HABBEMA,J. D. F., HERMANS,J. & VANDEN BROEK, K. (1974). A stepwise discriminant analysis program
usingdensityestimation.In Compstat1974,Ed. G. Bruckman,pp. 101-10. Vienna:Physica-Verlag.
QUENOUILLE,M. (1949). Approximatetestsof correlationin time-series. J. R. Statist.Soc. B 11, 68-84.
RUDEMO,M. (1982). Empiricalchoiceofhistogramsand kerneldensityestimators. Scand.J.Statist.9, 65-78.
SCOTT, D. W. (1992). MultivariateDensityEstimation.Theory,Practice,and Visualization. New York:Wiley.
SILVERMAN, B. W. (1984). Splinesmoothing:theequivalentvariablekernelmethod.Ann.Statist.12, 898-916.
SILVERMAN, B. W. (1986). DensityEstimationforStatisticsand Data Analysis.London: Chapman & Hall.
STIGLER,S. M. (1978). Mathematicalstatisticsin the earlyStates.Ann.Statist.6, 239-65.
STONE,M. (1974b). Cross-validationand assessmentof statisticalpredictions(withDiscussion).J. R. Statist.
Soc. B 36, 111-47. Correction(1976), 38, 102.
TUKEY; J. (1958). Bias and confidencein not quite largesamples.Ann.Statist.29, 614.


Biometrika Volume 88 Issue 1 2001 (Doi 10.2307/2673677) Peter Hall - Biometrika Centenary - Nonparametrics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biometrika Volume 88 Issue 1 2001 (Doi 10.2307/2673677) Peter Hall - Biometrika Centenary - Nonparametrics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biometrika Trust

Biometrika Centenary: Nonparametrics

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

From the 1930s to the present,Biometrikahas promotedinnovationin rank-based,

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

(1990) on rank-test-basedmethodsfor makinginferenceabout a subset of regression

3. NONPARAMETRIC METHODS FOR CURVE ESTIMATION

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

crossvalidationremainthe only viable methodologicalapproaches.The squared-error

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

3 2. Nonparametric and relatedtopics

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

son of bandwidthselectorsbased on crossvalidation,Akaike's information criterionor

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

one. He foundin favourof two of the competitors, but notedthat'Quenouille'smethod'

42. The bootstrap

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

dardisesforscale. The transformation involvessmoothing,and usuallyextrapolating, a

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

4.3. Nonparametricforms oflikelihood

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

didacticsignificance as a linkbetweencontemporary nonparametric methods,such as the

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

5. OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO NONPARAMETRIC METHODS

HelpfulcommentsbyLynneBillard,JohnMaindonald,Michael Martinand Alan Welsh

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:56:04 AM

You might also like