MANUSCRIPT
Regression estimator for the tail index
László Németha and András Zemplénib

arXiv:1708.04815v2 [stat.ME] 7 Dec 2017

a,b

Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Mathematics, Department of Probability and
Statistics, Budapest, Hungary.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Compiled December 8, 2017
ABSTRACT
Estimating the tail index parameter is one of the primal objectives in extreme
value theory. For heavy-tailed distributions the Hill estimator is the most popular
way to estimate the tail index parameter. Improving the Hill estimator was aimed by
recent works with different methods, for example by using bootstrap, or KolmogorovSmirnov metric. These methods are asymptotically consistent, but for tail index
ξ > 1 and smaller sample sizes the estimation fails to approach the theoretical value
for realistic sample sizes. In this paper, we introduce a new empirical method, which
can estimate high tail index parameters well and might also be useful for relatively
small sample sizes.
MSC code: 62G32, 62F40, 60G70.
KEYWORDS
Tail index; bootstrap; Hill estimation

1. Introduction
In probability theory and statistics there are many applications, where it is essential
to know the high quantiles of a distribution, for example solvency margin calculations
for insurances or estimating the highest possible loss caused by a natural disaster
within a given time period. Extreme value theory provides tools to solve these types
of problems. In the 1920’s Fisher and Tippet (1928) described the limit behaviour of
the maximum of i.i.d. samples. Their theorem is the basis of every research in extreme value theory. Later another approach emerged, where the extremal model is
based on the values over a high threshold. Its theoretical background was developed
by Balkema and de Haan (1974) and Pickands (1975), the statistical applications by
Davison and Smith (1990), among others – summarized by Leadbetter (1991). Both
approaches depend on the tail behaviour of the underlying distribution, which can be
measured by the tail index. Hill (1975) constructed an estimator for the tail index,
using the largest values of the ordered sample. This estimator is still popular, however finding the optimal number of sample elements to be used remains a challenge.
Numerous methods were developed to find the best threshold, for example the double bootstrap method by Danielsson et al. (2001), improved by Qi (2008) or a model
based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance by Danielsson et al. (2016). The Hill estimator
CONTACT L. Németh. Email: lnemeth@caesar.elte.hu, zempleni@ludens.elte.hu

is asymptotically consistent for both threshold selection methods, however simulations
show that for some sample distributions we need more than 10 000 observations for
a reasonably accurate estimation. Our new method skips the direct threshold selection for the initial sample and calculates the tail index estimation via the tail indices
of simulated subsamples. In this way it results in acceptable estimators for smaller
samples, like n ∈ (500, 2000) too.
1.1. Mathematical overview
Let X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn , . . . be an independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) sample
from a distribution function F , and Mn = max(X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ). If there exist sequences an > 0 and bn ∈ R, such that



Mn − bn
P
<x
an



→ G(x)

if n → ∞ for a nondegenerate distribution function G, then one can say that F is
in the maximum domain of attraction of G. The Fisher-Tippet theorem claims that
G belongs to a parametric family (with location, scale and shape parameter) called
generalized extreme value distribution. For every distribution G exist a > 0 and b,
such that G∗ (x) = G(ax + b) for every x, where G∗ is the standardized extreme value
distribution:

G∗ξ (x)

=

(

1

exp{−(1 + ξx)− ξ }, if ξ 6= 0,
exp{−e−x },
if ξ = 0,

(1)

where 1 + ξx > 0 holds. The ξ parameter is called the tail index of the distribution. In
case of a generalized extreme value distribution the tail index parameter is the shape
parameter, which is invariant of standardizing the distribution.
Another approach to the investigation of the tail behaviour is the peaks over threshold (POT) model of Balkema and de Haan (1974) and Pickands (1975) where the extremal model is based on the values over a threshold u. Let xF be the right endpoint
of the distribution F (finite or infinite). If the distribution of the standardized excesses
over the threshold has a limit, that must be the generalized Pareto distribution:



X −u
< x|X > u
P
σu



→ Fξ (x),

if u → xF ,

where
Fξ (x) =

(

1

6 0,
1 − (1 + ξx)− ξ , if ξ =
x
1−e ,
if ξ = 0.

(2)

For the given initial distribution F , the two model result in the same parameter ξ in
equations (1) and (2).
A function ℓ(x) is called slowly varying if limt→∞ ℓ(tx)/ℓ(t) = 1 for all x > 0. For
tail index parameter ξ > 0 the previous limit theorems are true if

2

1

1 − F (x) = x− ξ ℓ(x),

for x > 0.

Finding a proper function ℓ(x) and calculating the parameters of the limiting distribution is only applicable for special known distributions. In general case finding ℓ(x)
is unrealistic, therefore one can use estimators to approximate ξ.
2. Methods for defining the threshold in Hill estimator
For tail index ξ > 0 Hill (1975) proposed an estimator as follows: let X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn
be a sample from a distribution function F and X1∗ ≤ X2∗ ≤ · · · ≤ Xn∗ the ordered
statistic. The Hill estimator for the tail index is
k
1X
∗
∗
ξ̂ =
.
log Xn−i+1
− log Xn−k
k
i=1

Similarly to the POT model, the Hill estimator also uses the largest values of the
sample. The threshold is defined as the (k + 1)th highest observation.
The Hill estimator strongly depends on the choice for k. It is important to mention
that ξˆ is a consistent estimator for the tail index only if k → ∞ and k/n → 0 as
n → ∞. If one uses a too small k, the estimator has large variance, however for too
large k, the estimator is likely to be biased. Therefore proposing a method for choosing
the optimal k for the Hill estimator has been in the focus of research by Hall (1982)
and others since its invention .
2.1. Double bootstrap
One of the most accurate estimators, the double bootstrap method was introduced by
Danielsson et al. (2001), improved by Qi (2008). In this case, we can find a proposed
k by minimizing the asymptotic mean square error. Let
M

(i)

k
1X
∗
∗
(log Xn−j+1
− log Xn−k
)i .
(n, k) =
k
j=1

One can see, that ξ̂ = M (1) (n, k) is the Hill estimation. Instead of M (1) (n, k), the
method optimizes k for the mean square error of M (n, k) = M (2) (n, k)−2(M (1) (n, k))2 .
Let k1 be the optimal threshold index for M (1) (n, k), and k2 for M (n, k). The
k2
∼
k1



1
1−
ρ

1/(1−2ρ)

(3)

statement is proven by Danielsson et al. (2001), where ρ is a regularity parameter,
which can be estimated in a consistent way. This statement allows to estimate k2
instead of k1 by following the next steps.
• Choose ǫ ∈ (0, 1/2), and set m1 = [n1−ǫ ] to ensure consistency if n → ∞.
Estimate E(M (m1 , r)2 |X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ) by drawing m1 size bootstrap samples
3

from the empirical distribution function Fn and minimize it in r. Denote the
minimum by r1 .
• Set m2 = [m21 /n] and minimize E(M (m2 , r)2 |X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ) the same way as
in the first step, let the minimum be r2 .
• Estimate the regularity parameter ρ, which is important for further calculations,
by ρ̂ = log(r1 )/(−2 log(m1 ) + 2 log(r1 )).
• Now one can estimate the optimal k using the approximation (3) by



r12
1 1/(2ρ̂−1)
k̂ =
.
1−
r2
ρ̂
The Hill estimator based on the double bootstrap method provides appropriate tail
index estimation, but usually results in a long computation time. For smaller sample
sizes the acceptable range is limited to ξ > 0.5.
2.2. Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance metric
Another approach is to minimize the distance between the tail of the empirical distribution function and the fitted Pareto distribution with the estimated tail index
parameter. One can use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance for the quantiles as metric
as proposed by Danielsson et al. (2016). Assume that
1

1

F (x) = 1 − Cx− ξ + o(x− ξ ).
The quantile function can be approximated by
x=



P (X > x)
C

−ξ

.

The probability P (X > x) can be replaced by j/n, and ξ is estimated by the Hill
estimator for some k, moreover C can be estimated by nk (Xn−k+1 )1/ξ . Using these
substitutions one gets an estimation for the quantiles as a function of j and k.
q(j, k) =



k
(Xn−k+1 )1/ξ̂
j

ξ̂

.

The optimal k for the Hill estimator is chosen as the k, which minimizes the distance
between the empirical and the calculated quantiles


k̂ = arg min
sup |xn−j − q(j, k)| ,
k

j∈1,...,T

where T sets the fitting threshold (we call it KS threshold). The advantages of
this method are that it is easy to program and its computation time is short.
As Danielsson et al. (2016) mentioned, it is the best performing known method if
0 < ξ < 0.5 and also works well for small sample sizes. However, for distributions with
tail index ξ > 0.5 this technique results in highly biased estimation.
Generally it can be said, that there are good methods for finding an appropriate
k if the tail index parameter is 0 < ξ < 0.5, which contains distributions with finite
4

variance. However, these methods usually fail to perform well for the case ξ > 0.5
(these are distributions with infinite variance).
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov method was introduced and analized by simulations in
Danielsson et al. (2016), but no theoretical background is available for this method.
The Theorem 2.2 states that under some conditions the Kolmogorov-Smirnov technique results in unbiased estimation for the tail index. For the proof we need the
following lemma:
Q
Lemma 2.1. If k → ∞, then k1 log( kj=1 kj ) → 1.

Proof. For k → ∞ by using the Stirling formula we have
1
log
k

Y

k
k
=
j
j=1



kk
1
=
∼ log √
k
k
2πk kek
 k 


√
1
1
e
k
=
=
log √
log(e ) − log( 2πk)
k
k
2πk
√
1
= 1 − log( 2πk) → 1.
k
1
log
k



kk
k!



Theorem 2.2. The Hill estimatior results in asymptotically unbiased estimation for
the tail index using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov k-selection technique as k → ∞.
Proof. Let X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn be our sample, and be X1∗ , X2∗ , . . . , Xn∗ the ordered sample.
Let
qn (j, k) =



k
(Xn−k+1 )1/ξ
j

ξ

(4)

∗
be our unbiased quantile estimator for E(Xn−j+1
), similar as one can see
Danielsson et al. (2016). For the right n → ∞, k(n) → ∞ sequences the distribution
will be identical to a Pareto distribution (POT model). Therefore Glivenko-Cantelli
type theorems for quantiles provides that the q estimator is consistent, for every ε > 0
there is an M such that if n > M then the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance will be less
than ε.
Choose k which minimizes the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance of q estimator and Xj∗

5

samples and let ξ̂ be the Hill estimation using k if n > M .


 X
k
1
∗
∗
ˆ
(log(Xn−j+1 ) − log(Xn−k ))
E ξ) = E
k
j=1

=

1
log
k

Y
k



∗
E(Xn−j+1
)

j=1

∗
))
− log(E(Xn−k

∼

k
Y

1
qn (j, k) − log(qn (k + 1, k))
log
k

=

ξ
log
k

=

=

approximation by using (4)

j=1

j=1

1
k ∗
(Xn−k+1 ) ξ
j



− ξ · log



1
k
∗
(Xn−k+1
)ξ
k+1






k
k
Y
1
k
k
1X
∗
∗
ξ
log(Xn−k+1 ) − ξ log(
)+
) + log((Xn−k+1 ) )
log(
j
ξ
k+1

ξ
k



1
k

k
X

= ξ·

Y
k

j=1

∗
log(Xn−k+1
)

j=1



j=1

1
log(
k

k
Y

j=1

−

∗
log(Xn−k+1
)

ξ
+
k






k
Y
k
k
) − ξ log(
)
log(
j
k+1
j=1




k
k
) − ξ log(
) →ξ+0
j
k+1

However k → ∞ is not an evident condition and even if it is realized we cannot
say anything about the speed of convergence. This could lead to biased tail index
estimation using Kolmogorov-Smirnov method, especially if ξ has high value.

3. Estimator for heavy-tailed distributions
The method based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov metric is asymptotically unbiased. According to Danielsson et al. (2016) the method provides acceptable results for small
sample sizes if ξ < 0.5, but for tail index ξ > 0.5 usually samples of more than 10 000
elements are necessary to estimate ξ properly. However, in most real-life applications
such a large sample size is not available, therefore in cases of distributions with infinite
variance the Kolmogorov-Smirnov metric-based estimator has significant bias.
Independent data in size 500 from distributions with different tail index parameter
ξ were simulated to detect the magnitude of the bias. The estimations were calculated
30 000 times for each ξ. This experiment showed that the distribution of the estimator
is not normal, but in spite of the different initial distributions for each ξ, we received
similar empirical distributions for the estimators, which could be approximated by
a generalized extreme value distribution, as one can see in Figure 1. Although the
GEV fitting is the best among known distributions, the goodness of fit tests still
reject it. Therefore it would be beneficial characterizing the bootstrap distribution
more precisely. We estimated the parameters of the GEV distribution using maximum
likelihood method, which is a consistent estimator, although sometimes requires high
sample size for proper estimation.
6

However, based on the simulations, one can detect a linear relation between the parameters of the best fitting GEV distribution and the theoretical tail index parameter
ξ in the interval (0.5, 4) (see Figure 2). For ξ < 0.5 the mean of the estimations using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method was acceptable. For higher index values a linear
transformation can be used on the parameters of the fitted GEV distribution to estimate the tail index. When ξ > 4 the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method could not return
reasonable results, so the correction could not help.
Alternatively, the average of estimations and the theoretical tail index parameter
are also in linear connection according to simulations.
After recalculating the mean values and GEV parameters for sample sizes of 2000,
8000 and 10 000 with 10 000, 2000 and 1000 simulations we experienced that the values
were similar as one can see in Table 1. Due to the long calculation time no simulations
were run for higher (more than 10 000) sample sizes, especially that the asymptotic
behaviour of other methods are already realized for these sample sizes. With these
experiments we can state that in ξ ∈ (0.5, 4) the distribution of the KolmogorovSmirnov estimation does not depend on the sample size if 500 < n < 8000. Deviation
were detected only on ξ ≥ 3, n = 8000 case. These results allow to use linear regression
between the estimated GEV parameters and the theoretical tail index parameter.
Table 1. The mean and the parameters of the fitted GEV distribution for Kolmogorov-Smirnov estimations

ξ = 0.5,

ξ = 1,

ξ = 2,

ξ = 3,

ξ = 4,

n=500
n=2000
n=8000
n=10000
n=500
n=2000
n=8000
n=10000
n=500
n=2000
n=8000
n=10000
n=500
n=2000
n=8000
n=10000
n=500
n=2000
n=8000
n=10000

mean

location

scale

shape

0.448
0.446
0.454
0.448
0.85
0.855
0.859
0.856
1.628
1.634
1.617
1.59
2.392
2.36
2.408
2.441
2.962
3.137
3.149
3.09

0.378
0.378
0.383
0.382
0.701
0.709
0.724
0.713
1.334
1.356
1.336
1.316
1.978
1.963
2.055
2.09
2.478
2.59
2.637
2.573

0.113
0.112
0.116
0.116
0.274
0.274
0.27
0.276
0.605
0.601
0.602
0.594
0.935
0.903
0.911
0.903
1.159
1.232
1.225
1.2

0.043
0.032
0.045
-0.001
-0.03
-0.039
-0.078
-0.062
-0.094
-0.115
-0.108
-0.118
-0.141
-0.137
-0.22
-0.217
-0.177
-0.128
-0.163
-0.141

Based on the observations above we constructed an algorithm that can estimate
the tail index on the interval ξ ∈ (0.5, 4) for sample sizes between 500 and 10 000.
The connection stands for even smaller samples, however the proper behavior of the
bootstrap simulations require this sample size. For smaller sample the information
about the extremes is minimal and even using bootstrap resampling results in estimates
with high variance. The sample size has no significant effect on the estimation, when
modeling is done separately for the samples. If one constructs a model with the mean
7

Figure 1. Empirical density functions of Kolmogorov-Smirnov estimations for tail index ξ = 1 based on 1000
size samples using 5000 simulations and density function of the fitted GEV distribution (parameters: ξ = −0.04,
µ = 0.704, σ = 0.273) using all of the data

Figure 2. Linear regression for mean and EVD parameters. Average Kolmogorov-Smirnov estimations were
calculated using 500 size Frechet samples and 30000 simulations

of the Hill estimators, the location parameter of the fitted GEV and the sample size,
then the size becomes marginally significant with a negligible coefficient (p = 0.017,
coef= −0.0000046) which has noticeable effect only over 100 000 observations.
3.1. Algorithm
Let X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn be independent and identically distributed observations.
(1) As we investigate the extremal behaviour of the data, we apply the m out of n
bootstrap method to resample from the observations. According to Bickel et al.
(1997), see also Bickel and Sakov (2008) in case of extreme-value inference it is
important to set m as m → ∞ and m/n → 0 as n → ∞. One way to ensure this
property is if we chose m = nǫ , where ǫ ∈ (0.5, 1) can be arbitrary.
(2) Calculate ξ1 , ξ2 , . . . , ξM tail index estimations from the M bootstrap samples
8

using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method (2.2) for Hill estimator, where the bootP
strap sample size is m. Let ξ ∗ = ( M
j=1 ξj )/M be the average of KolmogorovSmirnov estimations.
(3) Fit a generalized extreme value distribution to the estimated values. Our experience is that the tail index of the initial distribution is in linear relation with
all of the extreme value parameters.
The covariance matrix of the best fitted GEV distribution parameters has the
eigenvalues 0.666, 0.0005, 0.00006, which means that there is only one significant
factor. The eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue is (0.89, 0.45, −0.09), so the
location and scale parameters have higher impact. If we apply a linear regression
with these parameters only, the location parameter has significant coefficient (p =
0.0003). Therefore we suggest to use the location parameter µ for estimation.
(4) Let ξ̂ = −0.119+1.603·µ. These values were calculated from the linear regression
of the previous step.
(5) Alternatively, we could have used the estimator ξ̂ ∗ = −0.1181+ 1.3301·ξ ∗ , where
ξ ∗ is the mean of the bootstrap samples.
3.2. Simulations
To examine the properties of the fitting regression estimator, we simulated data from
Pareto, Frechet, Student and symmetric stable distributions with the same theoretical
tail index parameter for samples of size 500, 1000 and 4000. We compared the average
of the calculated values by using our new regression method to the theoretical parameter between ξ = 0.2 and ξ = 5. Subsequently we calculated the average absolute error
from the theoretical ξ. For the different sample sizes we set the bootstrap subsample
size to 60, 100 or 300, respectively. We set a suitable KS threshold (15, 30, 120) in
each case, however our previous experiences shows that if the KS threshold is higher
than the 5% of the bootstrap sample its significance is negligible because the biggest
deviance is experienceable on highest quantiles.
One may conclude by Table 2, 3 and 4 that in the interval ξ ∈ (0.5, 4) the estimates
are near to the theoretical value. We can see that the mean of error for smaller tail
indices reduces by using higher sample sizes, while the estimator gets biased for larger
tail index. For n = 500 the estimation is still acceptable for ξ = 5. The only exception
is the symmetric stable case for ξ = 0.5, but this is practically the normal distribution,
which is not in the maximum domain of attraction of the Frechet distribution, so we
did not expect this extreme value model to work well.
Table 2. Average tail index estimations from 500 size samples, by using 500 simulations, while the bootstrap
sample size is m = 60. The KS threshold is set to 15. For every distribution we calculated the absolute error
from the theoretical parameter ξ

ξ

0.2

0.33

0.5

1

2

3

4

5

GPD
error
Frechet
error
Student
error
Stable
error

0.44
0.24
0.13
0.07
0.41
0.21

0.52
0.19
0.29
0.05
0.48
0.15

0.63
0.13
0.48
0.05
0.58
0.09
0.32
0.18

1.02
0.11
0.99
0.1
0.98
0.1
0.99
0.11

1.93
0.22
1.96
0.22
1.87
0.23
1.98
0.22

2.86
0.33
2.92
0.33
2.79
0.35
2.96
0.33

3.83
0.43
3.89
0.45
3.77
0.47
3.94
0.45

4.77
0.52
4.8
0.53
4.72
0.59
4.91
0.54

9

Table 3. Average tail index estimations from 1000 size samples, by using 200 simulations, while the bootstrap
sample size is 100. The KS threshold is set to 30. For every distribution we calculated the absolute error from
the theoretical parameter ξ

ξ
GPD
error
Frechet
error
Student
error
Stable
error

0.2
0.41
0.21
0.14
0.06
0.37
0.17

0.33
0.49
0.16
0.3
0.04
0.45
0.12

0.5
0.6
0.1
0.48
0.05
0.55
0.06
0.28
0.22

1
1.01
0.09
0.99
0.09
0.97
0.09
0.97
0.09

2
1.95
0.18
1.97
0.19
1.91
0.21
1.97
0.2

3
2.92
0.27
2.95
0.29
2.89
0.29
2.95
0.29

4
3.91
0.36
3.93
0.4
3.81
0.41
3.93
0.39

5
4.84
0.41
4.74
0.47
4.83
0.47
4.88
0.47

Table 4. Average tail index estimations from 4000 size samples, by using 200 simulations, while the bootstrap
sample size is 300. The KS threshold is set to 120. For every distribution we calculated the absolute error from
the theoretical parameter ξ

ξ
GPD
error
Frechet
error
Student
error
Stable
error

0.2
0.36
0.16
0.15
0.05
0.31
0.11

0.33
0.43
0.1
0.3
0.03
0.39
0.05

0.5
0.55
0.06
0.48
0.04
0.51
0.03
0.22
0.28

1
0.99
0.09
1
0.08
0.99
0.09
0.99
0.08

2
1.98
0.18
2
0.17
1.97
0.19
1.99
0.16

3
2.98
0.26
3.02
0.25
2.96
0.27
2.98
0.26

4
3.97
0.34
3.96
0.29
3.97
0.33
3.91
0.31

5
4.53
0.52
4.11
0.9
4.85
0.39
4.7
0.42

3.3. Comparison of the methods
As we mentioned the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method (2.2) was developed to estimate
tail index parameter in ξ ∈ (0, 0.5) interval. The double bootstrap (2.1) method can
be used for estimating larger values, but it has long computational time. However our
new algorithm works well for larger values than the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method and
it is faster than the double bootstrap. In this section we compare the methods for
different ξ by using samples of size 1000, and present the results in Table 5,6, 7 and 8.
For every distribution we can see, that the double bootstrap and the regression
estimators (3.1) have better properties: lower mean square error than the KolmogorovSmirnov method for ξ > 0.5, but if ξ < 0.5 the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method starts to
perform better. We can conclude that the double bootstrap and regression methods
have similar accuracy, but our new method has lower computational time and the
estimations can usually be approximated by the normal distribution (see Figure 3).
In the ξ ∈ (0.5, 4) region the regression estimators have similar errors for the investigated distributions, which means it does not depend on the distribution of the
sample, unlike the double bootstrap method.

10

Table 5. Comparing the methods for Frechet distribution using 200 simulations from samples of size 1000.
In double bootstrap method we used ǫ = 0.15 for determining the bootstrap sample size ratio and simulated
500 times in every bootstrap simulation. For fitting and mean regression the subsample size is 100 and the KS
threshold is set to 30. For every method we calculated the mean absolute error from the theoretical parameter
ξ

ξ
Double bootstrap
error
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
error
Regression fitting
error
Mean regression
error

0.2
0.21
0.02
0.18
0.04
0.14
0.06
0.16
0.04

0.33
0.35
0.04
0.3
0.08
0.3
0.04
0.31
0.03

0.5
0.53
0.05
0.44
0.13
0.48
0.05
0.5
0.04

1
1.06
0.1
0.82
0.29
0.99
0.09
1.02
0.09

2
2.11
0.21
1.61
0.58
1.97
0.19
2
0.18

3
3.17
0.31
2.35
0.88
2.95
0.29
2.97
0.27

4
4.23
0.41
2.57
1.44
3.93
0.4
3.91
0.35

5
5.29
0.52
1.65
3.35
4.74
0.46
4.59
0.48

Table 6. Comparing the methods for Student distribution using 200 simulations from samples of size 1000.
In double bootstrap method we used ǫ = 0.15 for determining the bootstrap sample size ratio and simulated
500 time in every bootstrap simulation. For fitting and mean regression the subsample size is 100 and the KS
threshold is set to 30. For every method we calculated the absolute error from the theoretical parameter ξ

ξ
Double bootstrap
error
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
error
Regression fitting
error
Mean regression
error

0.2
0.26
0.1
0.25
0.06
0.37
0.17
0.36
0.16

0.33
0.38
0.11
0.33
0.07
0.45
0.11
0.45
0.12

0.5
0.55
0.1
0.47
0.13
0.55
0.06
0.57
0.08

1
1.02
0.11
0.83
0.31
0.97
0.09
1
0.09

2
2.03
0.14
1.57
0.6
1.91
0.21
1.96
0.19

3
3.06
0.2
2.41
0.91
2.89
0.29
2.97
0.27

4
4.05
0.25
3
1.19
3.81
0.41
3.88
0.37

5
5.13
0.32
3.05
1.95
4.83
0.47
4.81
0.43

Table 7. Comparing the methods for symmetric stable distribution using 200 simulations from samples of
size 1000. In double bootstrap method we used ǫ = 0.15 for determining the bootstrap sample size ratio and
simulated 500 times in every bootstrap simulation. For fitting and mean regression the subsample size is 100
and the KS threshold is set to 30. For every method we calculated the mean absolute error from the theoretical
parameter ξ

ξ
Double bootstrap
error
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
error
Regression fitting
error
Mean regression
error

0.5
0.12
0.38
0.17
0.33
0.28
0.22
0.27
0.23

1
1.02
0.11
0.84
0.28
0.97
0.09
1.01
0.09

11

2
2.13
0.27
1.6
0.58
1.97
0.2
2.03
0.19

3
3.2
0.4
2.36
0.9
2.95
0.29
3.02
0.28

4
4.29
0.49
3.12
1.18
3.93
0.39
3.99
0.35

5
5.37
0.62
2.63
2.37
4.88
0.47
4.86
0.41

Table 8. Comparing the methods for Pareto distribution using 200 simulations from samples of size 1000.
In double bootstrap method we used ǫ = 0.15 for determining the bootstrap sample size ratio and simulated
500 times in every bootstrap simulation. For fitting and mean regression the subsample size is 100 and the KS
threshold is set to 30. For every method we calculated the mean absolute error from the theoretical parameter
ξ

ξ
Double bootstrap
error
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
error
Regression fitting
error
Mean regression
error

0.2
0.34
0.7
0.28
0.08
0.41
0.21
0.41
0.21

0.33
0.44
0.15
0.36
0.09
0.49
0.16
0.49
0.16

0.5
0.59
0.15
0.48
0.13
0.6
0.1
0.62
0.12

1
1.07
0.12
0.85
0.28
1.01
0.09
1.04
0.09

2
2.05
0.14
1.61
0.61
1.95
0.18
1.99
0.17

3
3.06
0.16
2.36
0.88
2.92
0.27
2.95
0.25

4
4.05
0.19
2.77
1.31
3.91
0.36
3.9
0.33

5
5.04
0.21
2.28
2.72
4.84
0.41
4.7
0.41

Figure 3. QQ plots for case ξ = 2 with regression estimation and double bootstrap to sample sizes of 500
and 1000. We have got p-values of 0.32 and 0.05 by the Anderson-Darling test for regression estimation, but
for double bootstrap both p-values were less than 0.0001.

The results of simulations in Table 5,6, 7 and 8 let us provide a model selection
method for estimating the tail index. One can choose the best method for the sample
by following the next steps:
(1) Estimate the tail index using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method (2.2). If the estimated ξˆ value is less than 0.5, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method is the best
among the investigated aproaches, thus the estimation is acceptable.
(2) If 0.5 < ξ̂ < 0.85, then it is likely that for the true tail index 0.5 < ξ < 1 holds,
thus the regression estimation (3.1) gives the best estimation.
(3) If 0.85 < ξ̂, then the behavior of the methods depends on the initial distribution.

12

Fit GPD, Student, Stable and Frechet distributions for the sample.
(4) If the best fitting distribution is GPD or Student, use the double bootstrap
method (2.1).
(5) If the best fitting distribution is Stable or Student, use the regression method.
3.4. Applications to real data
The Danish fire losses is a well known data set, which is suitable for testing extreme value models. Previous discussions were published e.g. by Resnick (1997),
Del Castillo and Padilla (2016) . The dataset contains 2167 fire losses, which occurred
between 1980 and 1990. For this amount of data we considered bootstrap subsample
sizes in the interval (50, 300). We calculated the tail index of this dataset with 10 000
bootstrap samples for different subsample sizes. The results can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9. Estimated tail index for Danish fire losses data with different subsample sizes

Subsample size
50
100
150
200
300

Regression fitting method
0.689
0.687
0.644
0.604
0.555

Mean regression method
0.702
0.68
0.646
0.621
0.598

For comparison, we calculated the tail index by using other methods. To be more
exact we fitted a generalized extreme value model for the maxima of 60 losses and
Pareto distribution over the threshold u = 30. The chosen values satisfies the ”not too
high, not too low” rule, which is required for the extreme value modeling. Moreover, we
estimated the tail index parameter with the Hill estimation by using double bootstrap
and Kolmogorov-Smirnov methods. The results can be seen in Table 10. Beside that
Figure 4 presents the Hill estimation using different k as threshold of ordered statistics.
Table 10. Comparing methods for Danish fire losses data

Method
Fitted GEV
Fitted GPD
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Double bootstrap

Tail index (ξ)
0.507
0.659
0.61
0.707

As one can see, our estimators are between the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the double
bootstrap methods. Using higher subsample size results in lower values. In theory the
subsample ratio has to tend to 0, therefore the estimations from smaller subsample
sizes must be closer to the real parameter. One can see, that the estimation is near
to the result of the double bootstrap. This observation corresponds to the fact that
for ξ > 0.5 the double bootstrap method is more accurate than the one based on the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance.
With the result of regression fitting method using subsamples of size 150, we estimated the quantiles of the generalized Pareto distribution with shape parameter
ξ = 0.644. By setting the above value for the shape and 0 as the location parameter,
the maximum likelihood estimation for scale is 0.95.

13

Figure 4. Hill estimation for the tail index parameter of Danish fire losses dataset, using different k values
for estimation.

Table 11 contains the calculated quantiles of the GPD(0, 0.95, 0.644). Moreover we
calculated the empirical distribution function for the quantile values. One can see, that
the high quantile estimators are close to the observed quantiles of the fire loss data.
Table 11. Quantiles of generalized Pareto(0,0.95,0.644), empirical distribution for Danish fire losses data at
the estimated points, together with the empirical quantiles

Quantile
0.95
0.99
0.999

estimated Pareto (emp. dist.)
8.68 (0.943)
27.156 (0.99)
124.66 (0.9986)

Empirical quantiles
9.97
26.04
131.55

4. Conclusion
Our new regression method (3.1) provides an opportunity to estimate the tail index
for heavy-tailed distributions. We have shown its merits by the parameter estimation
of known distributions, and presented that our method is also useful for real life data.
The computation time is less than using the double bootstrap method. However as
our algorithm also applies bootstrap techniques, one can use less bootstrap samples
to lower the computation time further if needed – at the expense of the estimations’
accuracy, or conversely.
Our simulations showed in consort of Danielsson et al. (2016) that the best estimation is based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance (2.2), if the ξ parameter is less
than 0.5. For 0.5 < ξ < 1 the regression estimation can result the best estimation.
However, for higher tail index the methods have a slight dependence of the initial
distribution. If the distribution is close to GPD or Student, then the double bootstrap
method (2.1) could result more accurate estimation. In contrast, if the distribution
14

is stable or Frechet we recommend to use the regression estimation. Therefore a fast
Hill estimation using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov method and fitting distributions for
the sample can help to choose the best method for estimating the tail index. This
model selection algorithm could be extended by comparing more methods or by more
fitted distributions.
Our regression estimation has two types, using the mean of the bootstrap samples
or using the location parameter of the best fitted GEV distribution. Our experiments
did not indicate which one is the more precise, therefore we suggest using both in a
real life analysis. Further calculations could find the answer for this question.

References
Balkema, A. and de Haan, L., 1974. Residual life time at great age, Annals of Probability, 2,
792-804.
Bickel, P. J., Götze, F. and van Zwet, W. R., 1997. Resampling fewer than n observations:gains,
losses and remedies on losses, Statistica Sinica, 7, 1-31.
Bickel, P. J. and Sakov, A., 2008. On the choice of m in the m out of n bootstrap and confidence
bounds for extrema, Statistica Sinica, 18, 967-985.
Danielsson, J., Ergun, L. M., De Haan, L. and de Vries, C. G., 2016. Tail
Index Estimation: Quantile Driven Threshold Selection, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2717478.
Danielsson, J., de Haan, L., Peng, L. and de Vries, C. G., 2001. Using a bootstrap method
to choose the sample fraction in tail index estimation, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 76,
226-248.
Davison, A. C. and Smith, R. L., 1990. Models for exceedances over high thresholds, Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 52, 393-442.
Del Castillo, J. and Padilla, M., 2016. Modeling extreme values by the residual coefficient of
variation, SORT–Statistics and operations research transactions, 40, 303-320.
Fisher, R. A. and Tippett, L. H. C., 1928. Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of
the largest or smallest member of a sample, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society, 24, 180-190.
Hill, B. M., 1975. A simple general approach to inference about the tail index, Annals of
Statistics, 3, 1163-1174.
Hall P., 1982. On some simple estimates of an exponent of regular variation, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 44, 37-42
Leadbetter, M. R., 1991. On a basis for ’Peaks over Threshold’ modeling, Statistics & Probability Letters, 12, 357-362.
Pickands, J., 1975. Statistical inference using extreme order statistics, Annals of Statistics, 3,
119-131.
Resnick, S. I., 1997). Discussion Of The Danish Data On Large Fire Insurance Losses, Astin
Bulletin 27, 139-151.
Qi, Y., 2008. Bootstrap and empirical likelihood methods in extremes, Springer, 11, 81-97.

15

