Comparative Analysis for Robust Penalized  Spline Smoothing Methods

<table>Box plots of run times using (a) penalized LS-estimation, (b) penalized <svg height="11.175" id="M248" style="vertical-align:-0.0pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 17.475 11.175" width="17.475" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,11.113)"><path d="M998 650l-8 -28q-71 -4 -86 -16t-22 -69l-50 -397q-3 -28 -4.5 -44t2 -29t6.5 -18.5t17 -10.5t24.5 -6.5t37.5 -3.5l-8 -28h-271l7 28q63 6 78 22t25 90l60 415h-2l-353 -552h-23l-130 536h-2l-70 -254q-44 -158 -47 -188q-5 -38 9 -51t71 -18l-6 -28h-241l8 28
q45 4 67 18.5t35 45.5q16 38 74 233l52 173q24 79 11.5 98t-89.5 26l6 28h177l136 -508l337 508h172z" id="x1D440"></path></g>
</svg>-estimation, (c) penalized <svg height="11.75" id="M249" style="vertical-align:-0.1254pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 8.2875004 11.75" width="8.2875004" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,11.4)"><path d="M457 488l-30 -3q-17 148 -131 148q-53 0 -84.5 -34.5t-31.5 -82.5q0 -42 25.5 -72t74.5 -62l33 -22q63 -42 95 -85t32 -102q0 -84 -67 -137t-163 -53q-58 0 -113 22t-70 43l-4 152l27 4q4 -32 15 -62.5t31 -59.5t53.5 -47t76.5 -18q56 0 92 35t36 96q0 39 -25 70t-78 68
l-31 22q-32 23 -53.5 41.5t-45 57t-23.5 77.5q0 82 58 132.5t156 50.5q46 0 101 -17l18.5 -6t17 -6t8.5 -3q-4 -55 0 -147z" id="x1D446"></path></g>
</svg>-estimation, and (d) the comparison of median run time for the simulated samples from each of the 9 distribution scenarios with replicate number <svg height="18.299999" id="M250" style="vertical-align:-0.17555pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 49.962502 18.299999" width="49.962502" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,15.775)"><path d="M434 650l-5 -28q-60 -8 -75 -20.5t-25 -69.5l-71 -395q-20 -107 -57.5 -168t-106.5 -94q-40 -18 -61 -20l-10 32q77 23 113 108q21 50 41 160l68 377q10 57 -1.5 69.5t-76.5 20.5l6 28h261z" id="x1D43D"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,12.54,15.775)"><path d="M535 323h-483v50h483v-50zM535 138h-483v50h483v-50z" id="x3D"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,27.244,15.775)"><path d="M384 0h-275v27q67 5 81.5 18.5t14.5 68.5v385q0 38 -7.5 47.5t-40.5 10.5l-48 2v24q85 15 178 52v-521q0 -55 14.5 -68.5t82.5 -18.5v-27z" id="x31"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,35.403,15.775)"><path d="M241 635q53 0 94 -28.5t63.5 -76t33.5 -102.5t11 -116q0 -58 -11 -112.5t-34 -103.5t-63.5 -78.5t-94.5 -29.5t-95 28t-64.5 75t-34.5 102.5t-11 118.5q0 58 11.5 112.5t34.5 103t64.5 78t95.5 29.5zM238 602q-32 0 -55.5 -25t-35.5 -68t-17.5 -91t-5.5 -105
q0 -76 10 -138.5t37 -107.5t69 -45q32 0 55.5 25t35.5 68.5t17.5 91.5t5.5 105t-5.5 105.5t-18 92t-36 68t-56.5 24.5z" id="x30"></path></g>
<g transform="matrix(.012,-0,0,-.012,43.575,7.613)"><path d="M285 378v-2q65 -13 102 -54.5t37 -97.5q0 -57 -30.5 -104.5t-74 -75t-85.5 -42t-72 -14.5q-31 0 -59.5 11t-40.5 23q-19 18 -16 36q1 16 23 33q13 10 24 0q58 -51 124 -51q55 0 88 40t33 112q0 64 -39 96.5t-88 32.5q-29 0 -64 -11l-6 29q77 25 118 57.5t41 84.5
q0 45 -26.5 69.5t-68.5 24.5q-67 0 -120 -79l-20 20l43 63q51 56 127 56h1q66 0 107 -37t41 -95q0 -42 -31 -71q-22 -23 -68 -54z" id="x33"></path></g>
</svg>.</table>

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Comparative Analysis for Robust Penalized Spline Smoothing Methods

Figure 3