1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0169-7439(99)00016-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Weighting schemes for updating regression models—a theoretical approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
39
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Selection of a weight value in past work has been based on replication of samples in the standardization set [11,17]. For example, if l ¼ 1, then no replication of the standardization set is used, if l ¼ 2 then duplicates are augmented, etc.…”
Section: Tikhonov Regularization Modificationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Selection of a weight value in past work has been based on replication of samples in the standardization set [11,17]. For example, if l ¼ 1, then no replication of the standardization set is used, if l ¼ 2 then duplicates are augmented, etc.…”
Section: Tikhonov Regularization Modificationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When a calibration model developed from instrumental measurements of standards is to be used on an instrument differing from the one where the data were collected, it is not surprising to see substantially poorer predictive performance on new data collected over the range of calibration because the calibration model does not span the environmental and instrumental variations present in measurements made on the secondary instrument. Model updating (MUP), often used to improve calibrations on a single instrument to reflect a changing distribution of calibration samples [9,10], can be used to correct for the new instrumental variation by adding calibration samples taken on the secondary instrument to the calibration model [7,14], so that the updated calibration model now includes embedded instrumental background effects observed on both instruments. MUP of this type yields a new, global model that can be applied to either instrument, but because it now spans the additional instrumental variation, the updated calibration model is often more complex, with a larger number of latent variables in the final model.…”
Section: Transfer Of Calibration Using Model Updating and Orthogonal mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous work has shown that, for similar instruments and for small calibration sets, a portion of the original calibration used as update samples, comprising 25-33% of the original calibration selected using a Kennard-Stone design and measured on the secondary instrument, is sufficient to obtain a global calibration model with performance similar to that of the original, single-instrument calibration model [7,14,15]. The update standards need not match those used in the original calibration, but with a large calibration set, it is necessary to either have many update standards or to weight them so that the update samples contribute sufficiently to the global model [9,10].…”
Section: Transfer Of Calibration Using Model Updating and Orthogonal mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Another approach [10] consists of developing a −generic model× that models the intraobject signal effect separately and that can be adapted to a target object. Also it is usual to update a calibration model by adding new samples to the calibration set in order to improve the model [11], the weak point of this approach being to define how −similar× a new sample is to the samples currently defining the calibration set [12]. Calibration strategies have even been developed based on locally weighted regressions with extended libraries [13,14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%