Combining Linear Regression Models
线性回归模型的组合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:摘要讨论通用回归模型组合与估计稳定性,未明确涉及宏观预测或金融收益预测。
线性回归模型的组合AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Model-combining (i.e., mixing) methods have been proposed in recent years to deal with uncertainty in model selection. Even though advantages of model combining over model selection have been demonstrated in simulations and data examples, it is still unclear to a large extent when model combining should be preferred. In this work, first we propose an instability measure to capture the uncertainty of model selection in estimation, called perturbation instability in estimation (PIE), based on perturbation of the sample. We demonstrate that estimators from model selection can have large PIE values and that model combining substantially reduces the instability for such cases. Second, we propose a model combining method, adaptive regression by mixing with model screening (ARMS), and derive a theoretical property. In ARMS, a screening step is taken to narrow down the list of candidate models before combining, which not only saves computing time, but also can improve estimation accuracy. Third, we compare ARMS with EBMA (an empirical Bayesian model averaging) and model selection methods in a number of simulations and real data examples. The comparison shows that model combining produces better estimators when the instability of model selection is high and that ARMS performs better than EBMA in most such cases in our simulations. With respect to the choice between model selection and model combining, we propose a rule of thumb in terms of PIE. The empirical results support that PIE is a sensible indicator of model selection instability in estimation and is useful for understanding whether model combining is a better choice over model selection for the data at hand.