首页> 外文OA文献 >Sum of ranking differences (SRD) to ensemble multivariate calibration model merits for tuning parameter selection and comparing calibration methods
【2h】

Sum of ranking differences (SRD) to ensemble multivariate calibration model merits for tuning parameter selection and comparing calibration methods

机译:等级差异总和(SRD)与整体多元校准模型的优缺点,用于调整参数选择和比较校准方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Most multivariate calibration methods require selection of tuning parameters, such as partial least squares (PLS) or the Tikhonov regularization variant ridge regression (RR). Tuning parameter values determine the direction and magnitude of respective model vectors thereby setting the resultant predication abilities of the model vectors. Simultaneously, tuning parameter values establish the corresponding bias/variance and the underlying selectivity/sensitivity tradeoffs. Selection of the final tuning parameter is often accomplished through some form of cross-validation and the resultant root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSECV) values are evaluated. However, selection of a "good" tuning parameter with this one model evaluation merit is almost impossible. Including additional model merits assists tuning parameter selection to provide better balanced models as well as allowing for a reasonable comparison between calibration methods. Using multiple merits requires decisions to be made on how to combine and weight the merits into an information criterion. An abundance of options are possible. Presented in this paper is the sum of ranking differences (SRD) to ensemble a collection of model evaluation merits varying across tuning parameters. It is shown that the SRD consensus ranking of model tuning parameters allows automatic selection of the final model, or a collection of models if so desired. Essentially, the user's preference for the degree of balance between bias and variance ultimately decides the merits used in SRD and hence, the tuning parameter values ranked lowest by SRD for automatic selection. The SRD process is also shown to allow simultaneous comparison of different calibration methods for a particular data set in conjunction with tuning parameter selection. Because SRD evaluates consistency across multiple merits, decisions on how to combine and weight merits are avoided. To demonstrate the utility of SRD, a near infrared spectral data set and a quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) data set are evaluated using PLS and RR.
机译:大多数多变量校准方法都需要选择调整参数,例如偏最小二乘(PLS)或Tikhonov正则化变量岭回归(RR)。调整参数值确定各个模型向量的方向和大小,从而设置模型向量的最终预测能力。同时,调整参数值会建立相应的偏差/方差以及潜在的选择性/灵敏度权衡。最终调整参数的选择通常通过某种形式的交叉验证来完成,并评估交叉验证所产生的均方根误差(RMSECV)值。但是,利用这种模型评估优点选择“良好”的调整参数几乎是不可能的。包括其他模型优点可帮助调整参数选择,以提供更好的平衡模型,并允许在校准方法之间进行合理的比较。使用多个优点需要决定如何将优点组合和加权为信息标准。可能有很多选择。本文提出的是等级差异之和(SRD),以整合因调整参数而异的模型评估价值的集合。结果表明,模型调整参数的SRD共识等级允许自动选择最终模型,或者根据需要选择模型集合。本质上,用户对偏差和方差之间的平衡程度的偏好最终决定了SRD中使用的优劣,因此,对于SDR而言,用于自动选择的调整参数值排名最低。还显示了SRD过程,可以结合调整参数选择同时比较特定数据集的不同校准方法。由于SRD在多个优点之间评估一致性,因此避免了如何组合和权衡优点的决定。为了证明SRD的实用性,使用PLS和RR评估了近红外光谱数据集和定量结构活性关系(QSAR)数据集。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号