Skip to main content
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

Statistics > Methodology

arXiv:2211.10088 (stat)
[Submitted on 18 Nov 2022]

Title:Testing for the Pareto type I distribution: A comparative study

Authors:L. Ndwandwe, J.S. Allison, L. Santana, I.J.H. Visagie
View PDF
Abstract:Pareto distributions are widely used models in economics, finance and actuarial sciences. As a result, a number of goodness-of-fit tests have been proposed for these distributions in the literature. We provide an overview of the existing tests for the Pareto distribution, focussing specifically on the Pareto type I distribution. To date, only a single overview paper on goodness-of-fit testing for Pareto distributions has been published. However, the mentioned paper has a much wider scope than is the case for the current paper as it covers multiple types of Pareto distributions. The current paper differs in a number of respects. First, the narrower focus on the Pareto type I distribution allows a larger number of tests to be included. Second, the current paper is concerned with composite hypotheses compared to the simple hypotheses (specifying the parameters of the Pareto distribution in question) considered in the mentioned overview. Third, the sample sizes considered in the two papers differ substantially.
In addition, we consider two different methods of fitting the Pareto Type I distribution; the method of maximum likelihood and a method closely related to moment matching. It is demonstrated that the method of estimation has a profound effect, not only on the powers achieved by the various tests, but also on the way in which numerical critical values are calculated. We show that, when using maximum likelihood, the resulting critical values are shape invariant and can be obtained using a Monte Carlo procedure. This is not the case when moment matching is employed.
The paper includes an extensive Monte Carlo power study. Based on the results obtained, we recommend the use of a test based on the phi divergence together with maximum likelihood estimation.
Subjects: Methodology (stat.ME); Computation (stat.CO)
Cite as: arXiv:2211.10088 [stat.ME]
  (or arXiv:2211.10088v1 [stat.ME] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.10088

Submission history

From: Jaco Visagie [view email]
[v1] Fri, 18 Nov 2022 08:33:27 UTC (63 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

  • View PDF
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
view license
Current browse context:
stat.ME
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2022-11
Change to browse by:
stat
stat.CO

References & Citations

export BibTeX citation

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)