2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2011.02.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Practical variable selection for generalized additive models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
490
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 629 publications
(493 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
490
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Variable selection was done in three steps. In the first step, double penalty selection was performed on the smooth terms [22]. In the second step, AIC backwards selection was done for the parametric terms.…”
Section: Statistical Si-modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Variable selection was done in three steps. In the first step, double penalty selection was performed on the smooth terms [22]. In the second step, AIC backwards selection was done for the parametric terms.…”
Section: Statistical Si-modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach achieves model selection without involving inference of the estimates. Marra and Wood (2011) present an extensive discussion about the variable selection for the penalized regression splines and provide guidance regarding its implementation for mgcv users.…”
Section: Mixed Effects Model Framework Of Penalized Regression Splinementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we cannot discriminate between the linear and the insignificant effects because the linear term is in the penalty null space, which means that the minimum value for the EDF is 1 for both the linear and insignificant effects. We employ a shrinkage method (Marra and Wood, 2011) as variable selection and it allows the discrimination. For variable selection we replace zero values in the penalty matrix S l in Eq.…”
Section: Mixed Effects Model Framework Of Penalized Regression Splinementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For selecting environmental variables for each GAM, we used a shrinkage approach (Roberts et al, 2016;Mannocci et al, 2017). In addition to the shrinkage approach, we applied an extra penalty to each environmental covariate as the smoothing parameter approached zero, which allowed its removal when the smoothing parameter was equal to zero (Marra and Wood, 2011;Drexler and Ainsworth, 2013;Grüss et al, 2014). Once a GAM was fitted, if an environmental covariate p-value had a p > 0.05, it was removed and the model was refitted (Koubbi et al, 2006;Weber and McClatchie, 2010;Grüss et al, 2014Grüss et al, , 2016dGrüss et al, , 2017aChagaris et al, 2015).…”
Section: Surface Salinity Unitless Terrain Ruggedness Index Unitlessmentioning
confidence: 99%