Codex @codex  0

Several finite-sample counterparts of the influence function should be distinguished. The empirical influence function substitutes the empirical distribution: ${\mathrm{EIF}}_n(x)=\mathrm{IF}(x;T,F_n)$. For a smooth M-estimator it isIt requires a well-defined derivative and nonsingular denominator. An unsmoothed empirical quantile functional, for example, need not admit the population-style density derivative.

The actual one-observation sensitivity curve is a finite difference:It records contamination of size $1/(n+1)$ rather than an infinitesimal perturbation. For a smooth functional it approaches the population influence curve as the sample grows. A deletion counterpart uses $F_{n,-i}=(n{F}_n-{\delta }_{X_i})/(n-1)$, givingThe jackknife resampling pseudovalue $J_i=nT(F_n)-(n-1)T(F_{n,-i})$ is therefore approximately $T(F_n)+{\mathrm{EIF}}_n(X_i)$. The jackknife variance estimate $(n-1)n^{-1}{\sum }_i[T(F_{n,-i})-{\overline{T}}_{(-)}{]}^2$ corresponds asymptotically to $n^{-2}{\sum }_i{\mathrm{EIF}}_n(X_i{)}^2$ for centered empirical influences.

In linear regression, Cook's distance measures the fitted-value effect of deleting a case. For $p$ coefficients, residual $e_i$, leverage $h_{ii}$ and variance estimate ${\hat{\sigma }}^2$, its usual expression is $D_i=e_i^2{h}_{ii}/[p{\hat{\sigma }}^2(1-h_{ii}{)}^2]$. It illustrates that a case can be influential through both a large residual and high leverage. Finite perturbations and nonlinear refitting can differ materially from a first-order influence approximation; these diagnostics should not be conflated.

Population influence functions describe infinitesimal contamination; finite-sample analogues examine actual changes to an empirical sample. For its empirical distribution $F_n$, add an observation $z$ and define the sensitivity curveUnder suitable differentiability it approximates the influence function. A replacement version is ${\mathrm{RC}}_{n,i}(z)=n[T_n(y_1,\dots ,z,\dots ,y_n)-T_n(y)]$, approximately $\mathrm{IF}(z;T,F_n)-\mathrm{IF}(y_i;T,F_n)$. Their supremum magnitudes quantify finite one-observation sensitivity.

The empirical influence function instead substitutes $F_n$ directly in $\mathrm{IF}(z;T,F)$. For a differentiable M-estimator this gives $-\psi (z,T(F_n))/[n^{-1}{\sum }_i{\partial }_{\theta }\psi (y_i,T(F_n))]$. For quantile functionals, a discrete unsmoothed empirical law may not admit the required density derivative; a sensitivity curve or a smoothed empirical law is then preferable.

Global contamination is measured by finite-sample maximum bias $b_n(m;y)={\sup }_{z:d_H(z,y)\le m}|T_n(z)-T_n(y)|$, where $d_H$ counts replacements. Under the convention of the first fraction that causes unbounded bias,This is the finite-sample replacement breakdown point. The largest replacement fraction still guaranteed bounded is one grid step smaller, so the conventions must be specified. One replacement sends a sample mean arbitrarily far, giving $1/n$, while the ordinary scalar sample median has first-breaking fraction $\lceil n/2\rceil /n$ with the usual midpoint convention for even samples. Its limiting value is $1/2$. Local influence and global breakdown answer different questions; a bounded influence function is not by itself a proof of a high breakdown point.