Talk:Partial least squares regression

	This 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
???	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.

Moving this article to Partial Least Squares

I think this article should be moved to "Partial Least Squares" for three reasons.

1. That's what I've always heard it stands for.
2. The SAS link refers to it that way.
3. Google returns the usual large number of results for that title, and only 3 pages for the current title.

I'll change it in the next few days unless there is comment here on reasons not to. Spalding 11:16, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with that. The style on Wikipedia is to minimize the use of capitals. The only articles I saw having all words starting with capitals are for people, and for book titles.

If you change this, you would also need to change least squares, and linear least squares and linear regression. I think this would be unacceptable. Wonder what others think. Oleg Alexandrov 16:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was Partial least squares, replacing linear with least. I wasn't thinking about capitalization when I typed that. I think the only other article that would have to be changed if we rename this article is the one or two that link here. Spalding 19:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, I like the "least" thing more, and is more used. Oleg Alexandrov 19:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference validity/appropriateness?

I'm not clear on what the protocol for referencing in Wikipedia is, but I have to admit that the three Abdi references strike me as unusual. I appreciate that Prof. Abdi, or one of his students, is willing to share the work, but are these the right references? They're not primary references, they're not necessarily free of copyright, they're not in a refereed journal (not that book chapters are bad, of course), they are otherwise extremely random (why Abdi?), and a simple "whois" on those edits shows that they came from the same school as the author. Is this appropriate? Or should we be happy that the work is being shared and keep the references as is?

Technical

Please add a paragraph explaining what it is/how it works without using "math jargon" (e.g. "hyperplanes of maximum variance"). Something for a first year University student (beginning calculus) would probably be about the level to aim for. -- 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

18 mths on that hasn't happened. I too came here looking for information and just found jargon. Message to the folks who write these pages : If the average reader knew all the fancy words, he/she wouldn't be coming to Wikipedia for the answers. So as the guy above says, aim the article at an inquisitive reasonably-intelligent beginner level. Otherwise the exercise is pointless. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it should have said "minimum variance"; I've fixed it. In one sense this is a relatively low-priority topic. The article suffers various other deficiencies as well, which would have been corrected otherwise. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and also: If it can be understood by a mathematician who's never heard of the method but not by a beginning calculus student, I wouldn't call it pointless. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the method?

The method seems to be more commonly called partial least squares in some communities than the alternative projection to latent structure so I have made a modification accordingly. Neither my edit nor the one it altered has a good citation. In my case, I am modifying it based on the standard in play in neuroimaging where it is routinely called partial least squares it is not clear what one would reference for something like this. 128.200.240.175 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page or reference is lacking a large quantity of information

We just ended a conference on PLS 9 Sept 2007. [1]

This is a major and large field of experimental, theoretical and applied statistics/mathematics. Then upon request, I was asked to check this page and I realize there is a great deal more to be said in about this. Just some momentary thoughts:

Aka. "PLS" and a number of variations: LPLS, PLS-PM, PLS..etc etc...
Missing initial and serious references on the topic
Mathematical background with some simple derivations and examples
more more...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahibadkaret (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly surprising that a lot is missing. Go ahead and add to the article. Michael Hardy 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

described algorithm wrong ?

The statement "T is orthonormal matrix " is wrong, as T is a vector ! I implemented the algorithm and it does not work, maybe I made a mistake. Can anybody give a reference to its origin ? There are lots of PLS algorithms, but I've nevern seen this one.

Found another error: If I start the PLS1 algorithm with y = (-1,0,1) then, T1 = (1/3, 1/3, 1/3) and q1 = 0 which breaks the loop indepenednt of X.

Further: T0 is initalized, but T1 is never constructed, it just appears in line 5.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksportrocker (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has anyone validated the content ?

Adding to the previous comment, i'm quite surprised the article mention that X=Y.B+B0, shouldn't it be Y=X.B+B0 ?