IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0299989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulation study to evaluate when Plasmode simulation is superior to parametric simulation in estimating the mean squared error of the least squares estimator in linear regression

Author

Listed:
  • Marieke Stolte
  • Nicholas Schreck
  • Alla Slynko
  • Maral Saadati
  • Axel Benner
  • Jörg Rahnenführer
  • Andrea Bommert

Abstract

Simulation is a crucial tool for the evaluation and comparison of statistical methods. How to design fair and neutral simulation studies is therefore of great interest for both researchers developing new methods and practitioners confronted with the choice of the most suitable method. The term simulation usually refers to parametric simulation, that is, computer experiments using artificial data made up of pseudo-random numbers. Plasmode simulation, that is, computer experiments using the combination of resampling feature data from a real-life dataset and generating the target variable with a known user-selected outcome-generating model, is an alternative that is often claimed to produce more realistic data. We compare parametric and Plasmode simulation for the example of estimating the mean squared error (MSE) of the least squares estimator (LSE) in linear regression. If the true underlying data-generating process (DGP) and the outcome-generating model (OGM) were known, parametric simulation would obviously be the best choice in terms of estimating the MSE well. However, in reality, both are usually unknown, so researchers have to make assumptions: in Plasmode simulation studies for the OGM, in parametric simulation for both DGP and OGM. Most likely, these assumptions do not exactly reflect the truth. Here, we aim to find out how assumptions deviating from the true DGP and the true OGM affect the performance of parametric and Plasmode simulations in the context of MSE estimation for the LSE and in which situations which simulation type is preferable. Our results suggest that the preferable simulation method depends on many factors, including the number of features, and on how and to what extent the assumptions of a parametric simulation differ from the true DGP. Also, the resampling strategy used for Plasmode influences the results. In particular, subsampling with a small sampling proportion can be recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Marieke Stolte & Nicholas Schreck & Alla Slynko & Maral Saadati & Axel Benner & Jörg Rahnenführer & Andrea Bommert, 2024. "Simulation study to evaluate when Plasmode simulation is superior to parametric simulation in estimating the mean squared error of the least squares estimator in linear regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-34, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299989
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299989
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299989&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0299989?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Riccardo De Bin & Silke Janitza & Willi Sauerbrei & Anne-Laure Boulesteix, 2016. "Subsampling versus bootstrapping in resampling-based model selection for multivariable regression," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 72(1), pages 272-280, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smitha D. Gnanaolivu & Joseph J. Erinjery & Marco Campera & Mewa Singh, 2025. "Distribution and Habitat Suitability of the Malabar Slender Loris ( Loris lydekkerianus malabaricus ) in the Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Liu, Zicheng & Lesselier, Dominique & Sudret, Bruno & Wiart, Joe, 2020. "Surrogate modeling based on resampled polynomial chaos expansions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    3. Javier Maldonado & Esther Ruiz, 2021. "Accurate Confidence Regions for Principal Components Factors," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(6), pages 1432-1453, December.
    4. De Bin, Riccardo & Boulesteix, Anne-Laure & Sauerbrei, Willi, 2017. "Detection of influential points as a byproduct of resampling-based variable selection procedures," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 19-31.
    5. Milica Maricic & Jose A. Egea & Veljko Jeremic, 2019. "A Hybrid Enhanced Scatter Search—Composite I-Distance Indicator (eSS-CIDI) Optimization Approach for Determining Weights Within Composite Indicators," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 497-537, July.
    6. Milica Maricic & Veljko Jeremic, 2023. "Imposing unsupervised constraints to the Benefit-of-the-Doubt (BoD) model," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(3), pages 259-296, December.
    7. Chung‐Wei Shen & Yi‐Hau Chen, 2018. "Model selection for semiparametric marginal mean regression accounting for within‐cluster subsampling variability and informative cluster size," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 934-943, September.
    8. Daniel A. Griffith, 2023. "Getis’s spatial filtering legacy: spatial autocorrelation mixtures in geospatial agricultural datasets," Journal of Spatial Econometrics, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-33, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0299989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.