Skip to content
Journal article

Heuristics of instability and stabilization in model selection

Breiman L...(+1 more)

Annals of Statistics, vol. 24, issue 6 (1996) pp. 2350-2383

  • 112


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 477


    Citations of this article.
  • N/A


    ScienceDirect users who have downloaded this article.
Sign in to save reference


In model selection, usually a "best" predictor is chosen from a collection μ^(⋅,s){\hat{\mu}(\cdot, s)} of predictors where μ^(⋅,s)\hat{\mu}(\cdot, s) is the minimum least-squares predictor in a collection Us\mathsf{U}_s of predictors. Here s is a complexity parameter; that is, the smaller s, the lower dimensional/smoother the models in Us\mathsf{U}_s. If L\mathsf{L} is the data used to derive the sequence μ^(⋅,s){\hat{\mu}(\cdot, s)}, the procedure is called unstable if a small change in L\mathsf{L} can cause large changes in μ^(⋅,s){\hat{\mu}(\cdot, s)}. With a crystal ball, one could pick the predictor in μ^(⋅,s){\hat{\mu}(\cdot, s)} having minimum prediction error. Without prescience, one uses test sets, cross-validation and so forth. The difference in prediction error between the crystal ball selection and the statistician's choice we call predictive loss. For an unstable procedure the predictive loss is large. This is shown by some analytics in a simple case and by simulation results in a more complex comparison of four different linear regression methods. Unstable procedures can be stabilized by perturbing the data, getting a new predictor sequence μ′^(⋅,s){\hat{\mu'}(\cdot, s)} and then averaging over many such predictor sequences.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Cross-validation
  • Prediction error
  • Predictive loss
  • Regression
  • Subset selection

Find this document

Get full text

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below