On a new estimator for the variance of the ratio estimator with small sample corrections
Section 2. A new variance estimator
Noting that
where
is the
sample mean of
and
using the second-order Taylor series expansion
it is seen
that the third-order Taylor series expansion of
is
Hence, using
we obtain
In (2.2) we
omitted one variance and one covariance because the underlying fifth and sixth
moments are of order
see
David and Sukhatme (1974). All (co)variances in (2.2) can be evaluated by using
the following results on product moments of four arbitrary sample means, say
and
where
and
Without
loss of generality, it is assumed for expediency that the population means are
zero, that is,
Formulas
(2.3) and (2.4) follow from Theorems 1 and 2 of Nath (1968) while (2.5)
and (2.6) follow from (2.4). From (2.2)-(2.6) it follows that
where
Similar formulas
in terms of cumulants are derived by Tin (1965) using some results from Kendall
and Stuart (1958). Unfortunately, the numerous cumulants in Tin’s formulas give
little insight into the structure of
and,
consequently, small sample corrections for the variance estimator require
somewhat tedious calculations. In contrast, from (2.7) it is seen that for
sufficiently large
approximation (1.2) leads to an underestimate
unless
is very
positive. In addition, Tin also discusses three alternative estimators for a
ratio but small sample corrections when estimating the various variances are
ignored by him.
It follows from
(2.1) and (2.3) that
also see Cochran
(1977, page 161). Subsequently, using
it
follows from (2.7) and (2.8) that the mean square error of
is
When the
variation coefficient
is
known, it is useful to write (2.9) as
where
and
In
practice,
in
(2.10) can be estimated by
where
and
However, the
estimator in (2.11) does not take into account the bias of
defined
above.
In
order to examine the bias of
we use some additional symbols
Now we can
write
as
where
and
are
sample means of
and
respectively. In (2.12) we used
and hence,
using (2.1), (2.3) and (2.4), we get
From (2.1)
and (2.12) it is seen that
where we used
and
Note
that it follows from (2.13) that for sufficiently large
the
quantity
leads to
an overestimate of
unless
is very
positive. To our best knowledge, formula (2.13) is not mentioned elsewhere in
the literature.
Based on (2.13),
an alternative estimator of
that
takes the bias of
into
account is
where
is
adjusted for the relative bias of
that
follows from (2.13). That is,
Note that we
used here
and
Finally,
it should be noted that the other estimators
and
in
(2.11) are also biased. However, it is less straightforward to derive that kind
of bias. It is hoped that by taking all (co)variances from the sample,
including
their
bias is modest. In addition, in the simulations of Section 3, we found
that replacing
by
did not
improve the results.