A Critique of Some Ridge Regression Methods
对若干岭回归方法的批评AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要是对一般回归收缩方法的概念批评,没有所列微观、宏观或金融细分的直接研究对象。
对若干岭回归方法的批评AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Ridge estimates seem motivated by a belief that least squares estimates tend to be too large, particularly when there is multicollinearity. The ridge solution is to supplement the data by stochastically shrinking the estimates toward zero. Although flexibility is provided by the abstention from exact exclusion restrictions, ridge regression retains many weaknesses of similarly motivated procedures : a neglect of the basic fact that linear transformations should not change the implicit estimates of a model's coefficients, an incorrect labeling of nonorthogonal data as weak, and a loose representation of a priori beliefs and reliance at times on ad hoc pseudoinformation.