Jump to content

Talk:Backfitting algorithm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
Given is the definition of AMs (not generalized).
Given is the definition of AMs (not generalized).
[[Special:Contributions/160.83.30.197|160.83.30.197]] ([[User talk:160.83.30.197|talk]]) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/160.83.30.197|160.83.30.197]] ([[User talk:160.83.30.197|talk]]) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

==Algorithm: Pseudo Code wrong?==
The last formula
<math> \hat{f_j} \leftarrow \hat{f_j} - 1/N \sum_{i=1}^N \hat{f_i}(x_{ij})</math>
in the pseudo code seems wrong or unnecessary to me. The index of <math>\hat{f_i}</math> ist not self explaining and the idea behind the formula is not clear at all. I think one should delete this formula!
[[Special:Contributions/141.67.245.196|141.67.245.196]] ([[User talk:141.67.245.196|talk]]) 10:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:15, 21 January 2011

WikiProject iconStatistics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Origin?

The origin for the algorithm stated here does not agree with that stated in the article additive model ... there isn't anything to say that there are different things called "backfitting algorithm". Melcombe (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Definition of GAMs wrong

Given is the definition of AMs (not generalized). 160.83.30.197 (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithm: Pseudo Code wrong?

The last formula in the pseudo code seems wrong or unnecessary to me. The index of ist not self explaining and the idea behind the formula is not clear at all. I think one should delete this formula! 141.67.245.196 (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]