Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation Based Model Selection for Manifold Regularization

Author(s):  
Jin Yuan ◽  
Yan-Ming Li ◽  
Cheng-Liang Liu ◽  
Xuan F. Zha
Author(s):  
Federico Belotti ◽  
Franco Peracchi

In this article, we describe jackknife2, a new prefix command for jackknifing linear estimators. It takes full advantage of the available leave-one-out formula, thereby allowing for substantial reduction in computing time. Of special note is that jackknife2 allows the user to compute cross-validation and diagnostic measures that are currently not available after ivregress 2sls, xtreg, and xtivregress.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 2448
Author(s):  
Liye Lv ◽  
Xueguan Song ◽  
Wei Sun

The leave-one-out cross validation (LOO-CV), which is a model-independent evaluate method, cannot always select the best of several models when the sample size is small. We modify the LOO-CV method by moving a validation point around random normal distributions—rather than leaving it out—naming it the move-one-away cross validation (MOA-CV), which is a model-dependent method. The key point of this method is to improve the accuracy rate of model selection that is unreliable in LOO-CV without enough samples. Errors from LOO-CV and MOA-CV, i.e., LOO-CVerror and MOA-CVerror, respectively, are employed to select the best one of four typical surrogate models through four standard mathematical functions and one engineering problem. The coefficient of determination (R-square, R2) is used to be a calibration of MOA-CVerror and LOO-CVerror. Results show that: (i) in terms of selecting the best models, MOA-CV and LOO-CV become better as sample size increases; (ii) MOA-CV has a better performance in selecting best models than LOO-CV; (iii) in the engineering problem, both the MOA-CV and LOO-CV can choose the worst models, and in most cases, MOA-CV has a higher probability to select the best model than LOO-CV.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Navarro

Discussions of model selection in the psychological literature typically frame the issues as a question of statistical inference, with the goal being to determine which model makes the best predictions about data. Within this setting, advocates of leave-one-out cross-validation and Bayes factors disagree on precisely which prediction problem model selection questions should aim to answer. In this comment, I discuss some of these issues from a scientific perspective. What goal does model selection serve when all models are known to be systematically wrong? How might "toy problems" tell a misleading story? How does the scientific goal of explanation align with (or differ from) traditional statistical concerns? I do not offer answers to these questions, but hope to highlight the reasons why psychological researchers cannot avoid asking them.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quentin Frederik Gronau ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Cross-validation (CV) is increasingly popular as a generic method to adjudicate between mathematical models of cognition and behavior. In order to measure model generalizability, CV quantifies out-of-sample predictive performance, and the CV preference goes to the model that predicted the out-of-sample data best. The advantages of CV include theoretic simplicity and practical feasibility. Despite its prominence, however, the limitations of CV are often underappreciated. Here we demonstrate the limitations of a particular form of CV --Bayesian leave-one-out cross-validation or LOO-- with three concrete examples. In each example, a data set of infinite size is perfectly in line with the predictions of a simple model (i.e., a general law or invariance). Nevertheless, LOO shows bounded and relatively modest support for the simple model. We conclude that CV is not a panacea for model selection.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 837-844
Author(s):  
Saraswathi Sivamani ◽  
Yongyun Cho ◽  
박장우 ◽  
Saravana Kumar ◽  
Chang-Sun Shin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document