Source author record

Simon N Wood

Simon N Wood appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
4topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2016arXiv

A note on basis dimension selection in generalized additive modelling

Two new approaches for checking the dimension of the basis functions when using penalized regression smoothers are presented. The first approach is a test for adequacy of the basis dimension based on an estimate of the residual variance calculated by differencing residuals that are neighbours according to the smooth covariates. The second approach is based on estimated degrees of freedom for a smooth of the model residuals with respect to the model covariates. In comparison with basis dimension selection algorithms based on smoothness selection criterion (GCV, AIC, REML) the above procedures are computationally efficient enough for routine use as part of model checking.

preprint2016arXiv

Computing AIC for black-box models using Generalised Degrees of Freedom: a comparison with cross-validation

Generalised Degrees of Freedom (GDF), as defined by Ye (1998 JASA 93:120-131), represent the sensitivity of model fits to perturbations of the data. As such they can be computed for any statistical model, making it possible, in principle, to derive the number of parameters in machine-learning approaches. Defined originally for normally distributed data only, we here investigate the potential of this approach for Bernoulli-data. GDF-values for models of simulated and real data are compared to model complexity-estimates from cross-validation. Similarly, we computed GDF-based AICc for randomForest, neural networks and boosted regression trees and demonstrated its similarity to cross-validation. GDF-estimates for binary data were unstable and inconsistently sensitive to the number of data points perturbed simultaneously, while at the same time being extremely computer-intensive in their calculation. Repeated 10-fold cross-validation was more robust, based on fewer assumptions and faster to compute. Our findings suggest that the GDF-approach does not readily transfer to Bernoulli data and a wider range of regression approaches.

preprint2016arXiv

Just Another Gibbs Additive Modeller: Interfacing JAGS and mgcv

The BUGS language offers a very flexible way of specifying complex statistical models for the purposes of Gibbs sampling, while its JAGS variant offers very convenient R integration via the rjags package. However, including smoothers in JAGS models can involve some quite tedious coding, especially for multivariate or adaptive smoothers. Further, if an additive smooth structure is required then some care is needed, in order to centre smooths appropriately, and to find appropriate starting values. R package mgcv implements a wide range of smoothers, all in a manner appropriate for inclusion in JAGS code, and automates centring and other smooth setup tasks. The purpose of this note is to describe an interface between mgcv and JAGS, based around an R function, `jagam', which takes a generalized additive model (GAM) as specified in mgcv and automatically generates the JAGS model code and data required for inference about the model via Gibbs sampling. Although the auto-generated JAGS code can be run as is, the expectation is that the user would wish to modify it in order to add complex stochastic model components readily specified in JAGS. A simple interface is also provided for visualisation and further inference about the estimated smooth components using standard mgcv functionality. The methods described here will be un-necessarily inefficient if all that is required is fully Bayesian inference about a standard GAM, rather than the full flexibility of JAGS. In that case the BayesX package would be more efficient.