CHANCE

ISSN: 0933-2480 (Print) 1867-2280 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucha20

Reconsidering the Human Face as Boxplot

David C. Hoaglin

To cite this article: David C. Hoaglin (2019) Reconsidering the Human Face as Boxplot, CHANCE,
32:3, 62-63, DOI: 10.1080/09332480.2019.1662703

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2019.1662703

Published online: 06 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucha20
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Reconsidering the Human

Face as Boxplot
David C. Hoaglin

I
welcome Sarjinder Singh’s creativity (“Box Plot
Versus Human Face,” CHANCE 32(2):28–29),
but the boxplot does not align with a human
face as closely as he suggests, and it does not classify
observations as outliers.
In the standard boxplot (in his notation), the inner
fences are:
LIF = Q 1 – 1.5(Q 3 – Q 1)
UIF = Q 3 + 1.5(Q 3 –Q1)
and the outer fences are:
LOF = Q 1 – 3(Q 3 – Q 1)
UOF = Q 3 + 3(Q 3 – Q 1)
(For Q 1 and Q 3 the boxplot uses a particular defini-
tion, known as the “fourths.”)
Importantly, all the data values are real, but some
may merit investigation. As in Professor Singh’s
construction, the left and right whiskers end at the
most-extreme data values that are inside the LIF and
UIF, respectively. Data values outside the inner fences
are plotted individually, and those beyond the outer
fences receive larger plotting symbols.
Exploratory data analysis (EDA) does not auto-
matically classify data values as “outliers.” It leaves
that judgment to the analyst, after investigation. Data
values between an inner fence and the corresponding
outer fence are “outside,” and those beyond the outer
fences are “far out.” Thus, Singh’s “mild outliers”
are merely “outside” and his “extreme outliers” are
“far out.”
It is helpful to have an idea of how often samples
of well-behaved (i.e., normal) data contain observa-
tions that are outside or far out. In this null situation,
the percentage of random samples that contain one

VOL. 32.3, 2019

62
or more observations beyond the inner fences is 33%
for n = 5, 20% for n = 10, 23% for n = 20, 36% for n
= 50, and 53% for n = 100; and it approaches 100%
as n becomes large. The irregularities in this sequence
of percentages arise mainly from the definition of
the fourths. For the outer fences, the corresponding
percentages are 13.4%, 2.9%, 1.2%, 0.5%, and 0.2%.
Thus, in well-behaved data, samples containing far out
observations are fairly rare, but samples containing
outside observations are fairly common.
Another characteristic of the boxplot is the per-
centage of observations that are outside (including
far out), supplemented by the percentage of observa-
tions that are far out—again, in well-behaved data.
The percentage of observations beyond the inner
fences is 8.6% for n = 5, 2.8% for n = 10, 1.7% for
n = 20, 1.15% for n = 50, and 0.95% for n = 100,
and 0.70% in a normal population. For the outer
fences, the corresponding percentages are 3.3%,
0.36%, 0.074%, 0.011%, 0.002%, and 0.00023%.
Thus, even normal distributions produce occasional
far out observations.
In published articles, boxplots usually summarize
part of a completed analysis. When they identify data
values as outside, however, the analysis is generally at
an early stage. Conceptually, an outlier comes from a
different population or mechanism than the bulk of
the data. In considering whether an outside data value
may actually be an outlier, one can use a stem-and-leaf
display or a dot plot to look closer at the whole batch
of data. An isolated outside or, especially, far out data
value may have helpful background information.
A batch may consist of distinct clusters; a boxplot
may hint at such structure, but it is not designed to
reveal it. If the outside data values appear at only one
end of the boxplot (often the upper end), a transfor-
mation may make the batch more nearly symmetric,
suggesting that the presence of outside data values is
a consequence of the initial scale of the data.
Further Reading
Emerson, J.D., and Strenio, J. 1983. Boxplots and
batch comparison. In Understanding Robust
and Exploratory Data Analysis. Hoaglin, D.C.,
Mosteller, F., and Tukey, J.W., eds. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 58–96.
Frigge, M., Hoaglin, D.C., and Iglewicz, B. 2014.
Some implementations of the boxplot. The Ameri-
can Statistician 43:50–4.
Hoaglin, D.C., Iglewicz, B., and Tukey, J.W. 1986.
Performance of some resistant rules for outlier
labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Associa-
tion 81:991–9.
Tukey, J.W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
About the Author
David C. Hoaglin is an independent consultant
based in Sudbury, Massachusetts.
CHANCE
63