Cited by 145Statistical Methods and InferenceMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Prediction via Orthogonalized Model Mixing

Clyde, Merlise, Desimone, Heather, Parmigiani, Giovanni·1996·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

We introduce an approach and algorithms for model mixing in large prediction problems with correlated predictors. We focus on the choice of predictors in linear models, and mix over possible subsets of candidate predictors. Our approach is based on expressing the space of models in terms of an orthogonalization of the design matrix. Advantages are both statistical and computational. Statistically, orthogonalization often leads to a reduction in the number of competing models by eliminating correlations. Computationally, large model spaces cannot be enumerated; recent approaches are based on sampling models with high posterior probability via Markov chains. Based on orthogonalization of the space of candidate predictors, we can approximate the posterior probabilities of models by products of predictor-specific terms. This leads to an importance sampling function for sampling directly from the joint distribution over the model space, without resorting to Markov chains. Compared to the latter, orthogonalized model mixing by importance sampling is faster in sampling models and is also more efficient in finding models that contribute significantly to the prediction. Further advantages are in the speed of convergence and the availability of more reliable convergence diagnostic tools. We illustrate these in practice, using a data set on prediction of crime rates. The model space is small enough so that enumeration of all models is available for comparison and convergence checks. Als…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476989

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clyde, M., Desimone, H., & Parmigiani, G.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1996-09
Volume
91
Issue
435
Pages
1197-1208
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2033149996
Cited by
145
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Markov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
orthogonalization, correlated predictors, model selection, importance sampling, posterior model probabilities, linear models, model space exploration, prediction intervals, crime rate prediction, storage conditions

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