{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021220159151193633, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003978779840848806, 'mean_word_length': 5.239669421487603, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of robust alternatives to Hotelling’s T 2 control chart

Control charts are one of the widest used techniques in statistical process control. In Phase I, historical observations are analysed in order to construct a control chart. Because of the existence of multiple outliers that are undetected by control charts such as Hotelling’s T 2 due to the masking effect, robust alternatives to Hotelling’s T 2 have been developed based on minimum volume ellipsoid (MVE) estimators, minimum covariance determinant (MCD) estimators, reweighted MCD estimators or trimmed estimators. In this paper, we use a simulation study to analyse the performance of each alternative in various situations and offer guidance for the correct use of each estimator.