Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Minor typo fix: accuracy -> RMSPE in reg1 #553

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 10, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions source/regression1.Rmd
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -761,10 +761,10 @@ Here we see that the smallest estimated RMSPE from cross-validation occurs when
If we want to compare this multivariable KNN regression model to the model with only a single
predictor *as part of the model tuning process* (e.g., if we are running forward selection as described
in the chapter on evaluating and tuning classification models),
then we must compare the accuracy estimated using only the training data via cross-validation.
Looking back, the estimated cross-validation accuracy for the single-predictor
then we must compare the RMSPE estimated using only the training data via cross-validation.
Looking back, the estimated cross-validation RMSPE for the single-predictor
model was `r format(round(sacr_min$mean), big.mark=",", nsmall=0, scientific = FALSE)`.
The estimated cross-validation accuracy for the multivariable model is
The estimated cross-validation RMSPE for the multivariable model is
`r format(round(sacr_multi$mean), big.mark=",", nsmall=0, scientific = FALSE)`.
Thus in this case, we did not improve the model
by a large amount by adding this additional predictor.
Expand Down
Loading