The number of PLS components to retain is chosen having regard to
prediction errors estimated using cross-validation, a widely - used technique.
Not exact matches
Much dissembling of information has taken the form of «mathswash», presenting vague
estimates as firm
predictions with nary a caveat or
error bar in sight.
What is the smartest way (having the lowest
prediction errors) to
estimate market beta across stocks for the purpose of portfolio construction?
If the researcher had provided reasonable
error estimates for all of the relationships modeled, I think the
predictions would have come with very wide
error bars, probably even permitting an ice age in time, because so many of the relationships are poorly understood.
RE: 4th
Error -RCB- Poses an objection to the non-scientific term catastrophic [NOTE: Scientific «consensus» is often being used & / or implied in standard climate - change discourse - Yet Consensus is a Political Term - NOT a Scientific Term]- HOWEVER - When Jim Hansen, the IPCC & Al Gore, et - al - go from predicting 450 — 500 ppm CO2 to 800 — 1000ppm by the end of the 21st century -LCB- said to the be highest atmospheric CO2 content in 20 — 30 Million YRS -RCB-; — &
estimates for aver global temps by 21st century's end go from 2 * C to 6 * C to 10 * C; — & increased sea level
estimates go from 10 - 20 cm to 50 - 60 cm to 1M — 2M -LCB- which would totally submerge the Maldives & partially so Bangladesh -RCB-; —
predictions of the total melting of the Himalayan Ice caps by 2050, near total melting of Greenland's ice sheet & partial melting of Antarctica's ice sheet before the 21st century's end; — massive crop failures; — more intense & frequent hurricane -LCB- ala Katrina -RCB- for much longer seasonal durations, etc, etc, etc... — IMO That's Sounds pretty damned CATASTROPHIC to ME!