2018
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1809.10632
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scalable visualisation methods for modern Generalized Additive Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…SAS Institute Inc., 2019) and R 3.6.0 (The R Core Team, 2019). GAMs were performed with the R package mgcv 1.8.28 (Wood, 2017) and GAMs figures were produced with the package mgcViz 0.1.4 (Fasiolo et al, 2019). Other figures were plotted with the R packages plotly (Plotly Technologies Inc., 2015) and ggplot2 3.1.0 (Wickham, 2016).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SAS Institute Inc., 2019) and R 3.6.0 (The R Core Team, 2019). GAMs were performed with the R package mgcv 1.8.28 (Wood, 2017) and GAMs figures were produced with the package mgcViz 0.1.4 (Fasiolo et al, 2019). Other figures were plotted with the R packages plotly (Plotly Technologies Inc., 2015) and ggplot2 3.1.0 (Wickham, 2016).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, all types of similarity explain significant parts of the variance in the human ratings on their own, with IMG similarity contributing the most to variance explained, followed by cbow similarity and PRO similarity. In the model containing all three types of similarity, the relations between all three predictors and the rating values are positive, as displayed in Figure 10; Fasiolo et al, 2018 (the falloff for very high values of language-based similarity is based only on very few items and should therefore not be overinterpreted, as is also indicated by the wide confidence interval band in that area)…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…types of similarity, the relations between all three predictors and the rating values are positive, as displayed in Figure10;Fasiolo et al, 2018 (the falloff for very high values of language-based similarity is based only on very few items and should therefore not be overinterpreted, as is also indicated by the wide confidence interval band in that area).…”
mentioning
confidence: 88%
“…These terms were fit with a first-derivative penalty to shrink them towards the population-level. Models were fit with an AR(1) process using the itsadug package (v2.3;van Rij et al, 2017), and assessed using the mgcV iz package (v0.1.6; Fasiolo et al, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%