跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

分类依据与纠错

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。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Zheng Yuan
Yuhong Yang

线性回归模型的组合

研究问题
面对模型选择不确定性,何时应采用模型组合而非选择单一模型?能否通过样本扰动衡量估计不稳定性并辅助这一判断?
方法与思路
作者提出基于样本扰动的估计不稳定性指标 PIE,以及先筛选候选模型再混合的 ARMS 方法,并与经验贝叶斯模型平均等方法比较。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,模型组合能缓解高选择不稳定性下的估计问题,ARMS 在多数此类模拟中优于比较方法,并据 PIE 提出经验选择规则。
阅读关注点
应核对扰动方式和 PIE 的定义、筛选与混合权重的构造、所述理论性质,以及经验规则在不同样本与候选模型下的可靠性。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;理论条件、经验规则阈值和结果幅度未说明,不能将模拟比较解释为普遍优势。

原文摘要

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.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文