Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2016
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1180986
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Smoothing Parameter and Model Selection for General Smooth Models

Abstract: This article discusses a general framework for smoothing parameter estimation for models with regular likelihoods constructed in terms of unknown smooth functions of covariates. Gaussian random effects and parametric terms may also be present. By construction the method is numerically stable and convergent, and enables smoothing parameter uncertainty to be quantified. The latter enables us to fix a well known problem with AIC for such models, thereby improving the range of model selection tools available. The … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
918
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,017 publications
(920 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
918
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…8 Alternative models considered included 3 and 4-knot models and free knot models, specifically thin-plate splines and adaptive splines. 9,10 Final model selection was based on the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC). Results from our model identified 2 ranges of values of average annual hospital volume that corresponded to changes in the log hazard ratio (HR).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 Alternative models considered included 3 and 4-knot models and free knot models, specifically thin-plate splines and adaptive splines. 9,10 Final model selection was based on the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC). Results from our model identified 2 ranges of values of average annual hospital volume that corresponded to changes in the log hazard ratio (HR).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggestion appears to be borne out by our comparative results, displayed in the lower subfigures of Figure 5, for two metrics of predictive performance: The new modified AIC implemented in mgcv, which adjusts the degrees of freedom to account for smoothing parameter uncertainty (Wood et al, 2016). …”
Section: Application: Signature Verificationmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…The new modified AIC implemented in mgcv, which adjusts the degrees of freedom to account for smoothing parameter uncertainty (Wood et al, 2016). …”
Section: Application: Signature Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We show in the results chapter that assuming a Gamma distribution leads to a sufficient variance stabilization in our case and in contrast to Lappi (1997) and Mehtätalo (2004Mehtätalo ( , 2005 we did not model the residual variance explicitly. However, the ongoing development of approaches like gam for location and scale (Wood et al 2016) will allow for a more flexible variance modelling in the future.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%