The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Selection of optimal regression models via cross‐validation
Abstract
A general problem arising in the development of regression models is the selection of the optimal model. Whenever a feature selection procedure, such as step forward, backward elimination, best subset or all possible combinations, or when a data compression approach, such as principal components or partial least‐squares regression, is used, the question of how many regression terms to include in the final model must be addressed. This work describes the evaluation of four different criteria for selection of the optimal predictive regression model using cross‐validation. The results obtained in this work illustrate the problems which can arise in the analysis of small or inadequately sampled data sets. The common approach, selecting the model which yields the absolute minimum in the predictive residual error sum of squares (PRESS), was found to have particularly poor statistical properties. A very simple change to a criterion based on the first local minimum in PRESS will provide a significant improvement in the cross‐validation result. A criterion based on testing the significance of incremental changes in PRESS with an F‐test may provide more robust performance than the local minimum in PRESS method.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Zhang, C., Zhang, M., Wang, S., Han, R., Cao, Y., Hua, W., Mao, Y., Zhang, X., Pang, X., Wei, C., et al. (2010) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2009.112 · Cited by 1,024
Recursive PCA for adaptive process monitoring
Li, W., Yue, H. H., Valle-Cervantes, S., & Qin, S. J. (2000) · Journal of Process Control · doi:10.1016/s0959-1524(00)00022-6 · Cited by 848
Valle, S., Li, W., & Qin, S. J. (1999) · Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · doi:10.1021/ie990110i · Cited by 549
Comparing the predictive accuracy of models using a simple randomization test
van der Voet, H. (1994) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/0169-7439(94)85050-x · Cited by 522
Wehrens, R., Putter, H., & Buydens, L. M. C. (2000) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/s0169-7439(00)00102-7 · Cited by 490
Metadata
- Authors
- Osten, D. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemometrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-48
- ISSN
- 0886-9383 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-128X
- OpenAlex
- W2083104012
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selection of optimal regression models via cross‐validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cem.1180020106
- The paper
- Osten, D. W. (1988). Selection of optimal regression models via cross‐validation. Journal of Chemometrics. https://doi.org/10.1002/cem.1180020106
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.