[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: k-fold cross validation

From   "Lachenbruch, Peter" <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: k-fold cross validation
Date   Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:51:19 -0800

I prefer bootstrapping myself.  

One issue with LOO is that the 'residuals' are correlated and with small
samples (say n<30 or so) the increase in variance is a problem.  The
method was first proposed by Quenouille in the 1950s, I used it in the
1960s, and Ned Glick showed that the bootstrap did a better job (i.e.,
smaller MSE) in the late 70s.  

If you want to use k-observations at a time, it may be better to redo
these with random sampling of the k observations.  

David Allen did something akin to this with his PRESS criterion
(Prediction Error Sum of Squares) - I don't think Stata has this (at
least under the name of PRESS), but may be able to give an equivalent

The trick to all of this is a simple matrix inversion formula, so that
one only needs to compute the inverse of X'X once and the rest is


Peter A. Lachenbruch
Department of Public Health
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97330
Phone: 541-737-3832
FAX: 541-737-4001

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Richard
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: st: k-fold cross validation

1. see the jackknife command for the extreme version of this

2. you may prefer to use bootstrap -- see that command


Nalin Payakachat wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to perform k-fold cross validation using Stata. Here are
> explanation for k-fold
> K-fold cross validation is one way to improve over the holdout method.
The data
> set is divided into k subsets, and the holdout method is repeated k
times. Each
> time, one of the k subsets is used as the test set and the other k-1
subsets are
> put together to form a training set. Then the average error across all
k trials
> is computed. The advantage of this method is that it matters less how
the data
> gets divided. Every data point gets to be in a test set exactly once,
and gets
> to be in a training set k-1 times. The variance of the resulting
estimate is
> reduced as k is increased. The disadvantage of this method is that the
> algorithm has to be rerun from scratch k times, which means it takes k
times as
> much computation to make an evaluation. A variant of this method is to
> divide the data into a test and training set k different times. The
advantage of
> doing this is that you can independently choose how large each test
set is and
> how many trials you average over.
> If anybody could help, I would deeply appreciate it.
> Thank you so much.
> Nalin
*   For searches and help try:

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index