ON VARIABLE SELECTION IN LINEAR REGRESSION
线性回归中的变量选择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:摘要讨论通用线性回归变量选择及比较方式,未指向所列具体应用领域。
线性回归中的变量选择AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Shibata (1981, Biometrika 68, 45–54) considers data-generating mechanisms belonging to a certain class of linear regressions with errors that are independent and identically normally distributed. He compares the variable selection criteria AIC (Akaike information criterion) and BIC (Bayesian information criterion) using the following type of comparison. For each fixed possible data–generating mechanism, these criteria are compared as the data length increases. The results of this comparison have been interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the data-generating mechanisms considered by Shibata, AIC is better than BIC for large data lengths. Shibata's comparison is pointwise in the space of data–generating mechanisms (as the data length increases). Such comparisons are potentially misleading. We consider a simple class of data-generating mechanisms satisfying Shibata's assumptions and carry out a different type of comparison. For each fixed data length (possibly large) we compare the variable selection criteria for every possible data-generating mechanism in this class. According to this comparison, for this class of data-generating mechanisms no matter how large the data length AIC is not better than BIC.