Regularization in regression: comparing Bayesian and frequentist methods in a poorly informative situation

Details Regularization in regression: comparing Bayesian and frequentist methods in a poorly informative situation Regularization in regression: comparing Bayesian and frequentist methods in a poorly informative situation

2010-10-02

arxiv.org/abs/1010.0300v3

Statistics

Methodology

Scientific paper

Using a collection of simulated an real benchmarks, we compare Bayesian and frequentist regularization approaches under a low informative constraint when the number of variables is almost equal to the number of observations on simulated and real datasets. This comparison includes new global noninformative approaches for Bayesian variable selection built on Zellner's g-priors that are similar to Liang et al. (2008). The interest of those calibration-free proposals is discussed. The numerical experiments we present highlight the appeal of Bayesian regularization methods, when compared with non-Bayesian alternatives. They dominate frequentist methods in the sense that they provide smaller prediction errors while selecting the most relevant variables in a parsimonious way.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Regularization in regression: comparing Bayesian and frequentist methods in a poorly informative situation does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Regularization in regression: comparing Bayesian and frequentist methods in a poorly informative situation, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Regularization in regression: comparing Bayesian and frequentist methods in a poorly informative situation will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-519391