Absolute Error Loss Mean
Contents |
a few people emailed asking for proofs of the results that the Bayes estimator is the mean (a median) [a mode] of the posterior density, when the loss function is quadratic (absolute error) [zero-one]. Let's take absolute error loss function a look at this, for the case of a single parameter. Throughout, the parameter to mean absolute percentage error be estimated will be called θ; y will denote the vector of random data; and θ* will be an estimator of θ. L[θ mean absolute error excel , θ*] will denote the (non-negative) loss when the θ* is used to estimate θ. First, some preliminaries........ The risk function is just expected loss, where the expectation is taken with respect to the data density. That is,
Mean Absolute Error Example
R[θ , θ*] =∫ L[θ , θ*] p(y | θ) dy. The Bayes estimator is defined as the estimator that minimizes the "Bayes risk", or "average risk", where now the averaging is now done with respect to the prior p.d.f. for θ, p(θ). That is, BR(θ*) =∫ R(θ , θ*) p(θ) dθ. If the double integral that's implicit in the definition of the Bayes risk converges, so that the order of integration can be reversed (Fubini's mean absolute error in r Theorem), then it's easily shown that choosing θ* so as to minimize BR(θ*) amounts to choosing θ* so as to minimize posterior expected loss, which is defined as∫ L[θ , θ*]p(θ | y) dθ. Whenever the Bayes risk is defined, the Bayes and "minimum expected loss" (MELO) estimators coincide. In addition, the latter estimator is usually defined even if the Bayes risk isn't. So, it's quite common to refer to the MELO estimator as the Bayes estimator of θ, even though that's not strictly the correct definition. Alright, so let's now consider our three loss functions: L[θ , θ*] = a ( θ - θ*)2 ; where a > 0 L[θ , θ*] = a |θ - θ*| ; where a > 0 L[θ , θ*]= 0 ; if |θ - θ*| < ε ; where ε > 0 = c ; |θ - θ*| ≥ ε ; where c > 0 . Here,ε is going to be very small; and without any loss of generality, let's set a = c = 1. Notice that each of these loss functions is symmetric. This can be unduly restrictive, and often we use asymmetric loss functions, such as the LINEX loss (e.g., Varian, 1974; Zellne
a few people emailed asking for proofs of the results that the Bayes estimator is the mean (a median) [a mode] of the posterior density, when the loss function is quadratic mean absolute error vs mean squared error (absolute error) [zero-one]. Let's take a look at this, for the case of a
Mean Absolute Error Python
single parameter. Throughout, the parameter to be estimated will be called θ; y will denote the vector of random data; and
Mean Absolute Error Weka
θ* will be an estimator of θ. L[θ , θ*] will denote the (non-negative) loss when the θ* is used to estimate θ. First, some preliminaries........ The risk function is just expected loss, where the http://davegiles.blogspot.com/2012/05/bayes-estimators-loss-functions-and-j-m.html expectation is taken with respect to the data density. That is, R[θ , θ*] =∫ L[θ , θ*] p(y | θ) dy. The Bayes estimator is defined as the estimator that minimizes the "Bayes risk", or "average risk", where now the averaging is now done with respect to the prior p.d.f. for θ, p(θ). That is, BR(θ*) =∫ R(θ , θ*) p(θ) dθ. If the double integral that's implicit in the http://davegiles.blogspot.com/2012/05/bayes-estimators-loss-functions-and-j-m.html definition of the Bayes risk converges, so that the order of integration can be reversed (Fubini's Theorem), then it's easily shown that choosing θ* so as to minimize BR(θ*) amounts to choosing θ* so as to minimize posterior expected loss, which is defined as∫ L[θ , θ*]p(θ | y) dθ. Whenever the Bayes risk is defined, the Bayes and "minimum expected loss" (MELO) estimators coincide. In addition, the latter estimator is usually defined even if the Bayes risk isn't. So, it's quite common to refer to the MELO estimator as the Bayes estimator of θ, even though that's not strictly the correct definition. Alright, so let's now consider our three loss functions: L[θ , θ*] = a ( θ - θ*)2 ; where a > 0 L[θ , θ*] = a |θ - θ*| ; where a > 0 L[θ , θ*]= 0 ; if |θ - θ*| < ε ; where ε > 0 = c ; |θ - θ*| ≥ ε ; where c > 0 . Here,ε is going to be very small; and without any loss of generality, let's set a = c =
is the difference between squared error and absolute error?In machine learning while we start we usually learn the cost function. Which in most of the case average of sum of the error difference but its https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-squared-error-and-absolute-error always recommended to use Squared average.Is there any releavant fact that supports it ?UpdateCancelPromoted by Udacity.comMaster Machine Learning with a course created by Google.Become a Machine Learning Engineer in this self-paced course. Job offer guaranteed, or your money back.Learn More at Udacity.comAnswer Wiki5 Answers Shuai Wang, founder, machine learning engineerWritten 90w agoThis is a great post: Squared or Absolute? How different error can be.Basically MAE is more robust absolute error to outlier than is MSE. MAE assigns equal weight to the data whereas MSE emphasizes the extremes - the square of a very small number (smaller than 1) is even smaller, and the square of a big number is even bigger.9.6k Views · View UpvotesRelated QuestionsMore Answers BelowAre there instances where root mean squared error might be used rather than mean absolute error?1,903 ViewsHow would a model change if mean absolute error we minimized absolute error instead of squared error? What about the other way around?6,263 ViewsWhy Isn't This Reconstruction Error/Outlier Score Not Squared?17 ViewsWhy do we square the margin of error?1,218 ViewsWhat is the formula of absolute error?1,538 Views Sergül AydöreWritten 84w agoBoth mean squared error (MSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) are used in predictive modeling. MSE has nice mathematical properties which makes it easier to compute the gradient. However, MAE requires more complicated tools such as linear programming to compute the gradient. Because of the square, large errors have relatively greater influence on MSE than do the smaller error. Therefore, MAE is more robust to outliers since it does not make use of square. On the other hand, MSE is more useful if we are concerned about large errors whose consequences are much bigger than equivalent smaller ones. MSE also correspons to maximizing the likelihood of Gaussian random variables.5.5k Views · View Upvotes Avinash Joshi, Books... My first friendUpdated 89w agoSay you define your error as,[math]Predicted Value - Actual Value[/math]. Then the error in estimation can be of two kinds,You underestimate the value, in which case your error will be negative.You overestimate the value, in which case your error will be p
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:43:37 GMT by s_hv1002 (squid/3.5.20)