Paper detail

Cross validation for model selection: a primer with examples from ecology

The growing use of model-selection principles in ecology for statistical inference is underpinned by information criteria (IC) and cross-validation (CV) techniques. Although IC techniques, such as Akaike&#39;s Information Criterion, have been historically more popular in ecology, CV is a versatile and increasingly used alternative. CV uses data splitting to estimate model scores based on (out-of-sample) predictive performance, which can be used even when it is not possible to derive a likelihood (e.g., machine learning) or count parameters precisely (e.g., mixed-effects models and penalised regression). Here we provide a primer to understanding and applying CV in ecology. We review commonly applied variants of CV, including approximate methods, and make recommendations for their use based on the statistical context. We explain some important -- but often overlooked -- technical aspects of CV, such as bias correction, estimation uncertainty, score selection, and parsimonious selection rules. We also address misconceptions (and truths) about impediments to the use of CV, including computational cost and ease of implementation, and clarify the relationship between CV and information-theoretic approaches to model selection. The paper includes two ecological case studies which illustrate the application of the techniques. We conclude that CV-based model selection should be widely applied to ecological analyses, because of its robust estimation properties and the broad range of situations for which it is applicable. In particular, we recommend using leave-one-out (LOO) or approximate LOO CV to minimise bias, or otherwise K-fold CV using bias correction if K<10. To mitigate overfitting, we recommend calibrated selection via the modified one-standard-error rule which accounts for the predominant cause of overfitting: score-estimation uncertainty.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.