Edzer Pebesma
Verzonden: maandag 23 februari 2009 20:32
Aan: dde...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
CC: r-sig-geo@stat.math.ethz.ch
Onderwerp: Re: [R-sig-Geo] cross validation gstat
dde...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
> Hi list,
> A quick question regarding n-fold validation...
> I've seen several
...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
Cc: r-sig-geo@stat.math.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [R-sig-Geo] cross validation gstat
dde...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
> Hi list,
> A quick question regarding n-fold validation...
> I've seen several papers suggest the LOOCV is too optimistic. Is
> n-fold
Thanks Edzer,
for some reason I had it in my head that n-fold was a variant of what
you describe; an independent randomly selected set to "check" the fit
if the model. I guess that's where I was heading with CV, sore form of
relative assessment of how "good" the fitted variogram model was/is
dde...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
> Hi list,
> A quick question regarding n-fold validation...
> I've seen several papers suggest the LOOCV is too optimistic. Is
> n-fold closer to a "true" validation?
I don't think "true" validation exists; could you explain what it is? If
you mean having a compl
Hi list,
A quick question regarding n-fold validation...
I've seen several papers suggest the LOOCV is too optimistic. Is
n-fold closer to a "true" validation?
I am assuming that it uses the variogram that is constructed using ALL
data, so my assumption is that the variogram is not re-fit for
