The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On Measuring and Correcting the Effects of Data Mining and Model Selection
Abstract
In the theory of linear models, the concept of degrees of freedom plays an important role. This concept is often used for measurement of model complexity, for obtaining an unbiased estimate of the error variance, and for comparison of different models. I have developed a concept of generalized degrees of freedom (GDF) that is applicable to complex modeling procedures. The definition is based on the sum of the sensitivity of each fitted value to perturbation in the corresponding observed value. The concept is nonasymptotic in nature and does not require analytic knowledge of the modeling procedures. The concept of GDF offers a unified framework under which complex and highly irregular modeling procedures can be analyzed in the same way as classical linear models. By using this framework, many difficult problems can be solved easily. For example, one can now measure the number of observations used in a variable selection process. Different modeling procedures, such as a tree-based regression and a projection pursuit regression, can be compared on the basis of their residual sums of squares and the GDF that they cost. I apply the proposed framework to measure the effect of variable selection in linear models, leading to corrections of selection bias in various goodness-of-fit statistics. The theory also has interesting implications for the effect of general model searching by a human modeler.
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
Cites
Craven, P., & Wahba, G. (1978) · Numerische Mathematik · doi:10.1007/bf01404567 · Cited by 3,388
Cited by
Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & Van Der Linde, A. (2002) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00353 · Cited by 151
Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I., & Tibshirani, R. (2004) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/009053604000000067 · Cited by 9,357
Steyerberg, E. W., Bleeker, S. E., Moll, H. A., Grobbee, D. E., & Moons, K. G. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00047-7 · Cited by 611
Evaluating Prediction Rules for t -Year Survivors With Censored Regression Models
Uno, H., Cai, T., Tian, L., & Wei, L. J. (2007) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214507000000149 · Cited by 413
Application of Shrinkage Techniques in Logistic Regression Analysis: A Case Study
Steyerberg, E. W., Eijkemans, M. J. C., & Habbema, J. D. F. (2001) · Statistica Neerlandica · doi:10.1111/1467-9574.00157 · Cited by 124
Zhang, L., & Garcia-Munoz, S. (2009) · Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems · doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2009.03.007 · Cited by 84
(1998) · doi:10.1007/3-540-26577-5_17 · Cited by 15
Fast probabilistic whitening transformation for ultra-high dimensional genetic data
Hoffman, G. E., Dillard, C. P., Girdhar, K., & Roussos, P. (2026) · PLOS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1012320
Metadata
- Authors
- Ye, J.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-03
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 441
- Pages
- 120-131
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W1999058847
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.14
- 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
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.