Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models

被引:558
作者
Tedeschi, LO [1 ]
机构
[1] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Anim Sci, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
关键词
adequacy; evaluation; modeling; testing; validation;
D O I
10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
Models are mathematical representations of mechanisms that govern natural phenomena that are not fully recognized, controlled, or understood. They have become indispensable tools via decision support systems for policy makers and researchers to provide ways to express the scientific knowledge. Model usefulness has to be assessed through its sustainability for a particular purpose. Adequate statistical analysis is an indispensable step during development, evaluation, and revision phases of a model. Therefore, in this paper we discussed and compared several techniques to evaluate mathematical models designed for predictive purposes. The identification and acceptance of wrongness of a model is an important step towards the development of more reliable and accurate models. The assessment of the adequacy of models is only possible through the combination of several statistical analyses and proper investigation regarding the purposes for which the mathematical model was initially conceptualized and developed for. The use of only a few techniques may be misleading in selecting the appropriate model in a given scenario. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:225 / 247
页数:23
相关论文
共 73 条
[1]  
AGRESTI A., 2019, INTRO CATEGORICAL DA
[2]   Model validation through the linear regression fit to actual versus predicted values [J].
Analla, M .
AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS, 1998, 57 (01) :115-119
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Categorical data analysis
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1999, SAS SYSTEM MIXED MOD
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1957, EXPT DESIGN
[6]  
Bibby J., 1977, Prediction and Improved Estimation in Linear Models
[7]  
Burnham K. P., 2002, MODEL SELECTION MULT
[8]  
BYERS FM, 1989, P EN MET FARM AN 11, P195
[10]   A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES [J].
COHEN, J .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) :37-46