A Visualization for Comparative Analysis of Regression Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19291v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 07:31:34 GMT
• Title: A Visualization for Comparative Analysis of Regression Models
• Abstract summary: Performance is usually measured using various metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), or R-squared (R$2$)<n>This article introduces a novel visualization approach that highlights key aspects of regression model performance.
• Score: 1.1024591739346294
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As regression is a widely studied problem, many methods have been proposed to solve it, each of them often requiring setting different hyper-parameters. Therefore, selecting the proper method for a given application may be very difficult and relies on comparing their performances. Performance is usually measured using various metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), or R-squared (R${}^2$). These metrics provide a numerical summary of predictive accuracy by quantifying the difference between predicted and actual values. However, while these metrics are widely used in the literature for summarizing model performance and useful to distinguish between models performing poorly and well, they often aggregate too much information. This article addresses these limitations by introducing a novel visualization approach that highlights key aspects of regression model performance. The proposed method builds upon three main contributions: (1) considering the residuals in a 2D space, which allows for simultaneous evaluation of errors from two models, (2) leveraging the Mahalanobis distance to account for correlations and differences in scale within the data, and (3) employing a colormap to visualize the percentile-based distribution of errors, making it easier to identify dense regions and outliers. By graphically representing the distribution of errors and their correlations, this approach provides a more detailed and comprehensive view of model performance, enabling users to uncover patterns that traditional aggregate metrics may obscure. The proposed visualization method facilitates a deeper understanding of regression model performance differences and error distributions, enhancing the evaluation and comparison process.

Related papers

• Optimising Factual Consistency in Summarisation via Preference Learning from Multiple Imperfect Metrics [0.9867902290081937]
  We introduce an automated training pipeline that improves factual consistency in summaries by aggregating scores from different weak metrics.<n>Our approach avoids the need for complex reward shaping by mapping scores to preferences and filtering out cases with high disagreement between metrics.<n>Experiments demonstrate consistent factuality gains across models, ranging from early encoder-decoder architectures to modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T10:55:03Z)
• Nonparametric Data Attribution for Diffusion Models [57.820618036556084]
  Data attribution for generative models seeks to quantify the influence of individual training examples on model outputs.<n>We propose a nonparametric attribution method that operates entirely on data, measuring influence via patch-level similarity between generated and training images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T03:37:16Z)
• Minimal Variance Model Aggregation: A principled, non-intrusive, and versatile integration of black box models [0.2455468619225742]
  We introduce Minimal Empirical Variance Aggregation (MEVA), a data-driven framework that integrates predictions from various models.<n>This non-intrusive, model-agnostic approach treats the contributing models as black boxes and accommodates outputs from diverse methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T18:33:21Z)
• Variable Importance Matching for Causal Inference [73.25504313552516]
  We describe a general framework called Model-to-Match that achieves these goals. Model-to-Match uses variable importance measurements to construct a distance metric. We operationalize the Model-to-Match framework with LASSO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T00:43:03Z)
• MAUVE Scores for Generative Models: Theory and Practice [95.86006777961182]
  We present MAUVE, a family of comparison measures between pairs of distributions such as those encountered in the generative modeling of text or images. We find that MAUVE can quantify the gaps between the distributions of human-written text and those of modern neural language models. We demonstrate in the vision domain that MAUVE can identify known properties of generated images on par with or better than existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-30T07:37:40Z)
• Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors [105.12462629663757]
  In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T15:26:48Z)
• RMFGP: Rotated Multi-fidelity Gaussian process with Dimension Reduction for High-dimensional Uncertainty Quantification [12.826754199680474]
  Multi-fidelity modelling enables accurate inference even when only a small set of accurate data is available. By combining the realizations of the high-fidelity model with one or more low-fidelity models, the multi-fidelity method can make accurate predictions of quantities of interest. This paper proposes a new dimension reduction framework based on rotated multi-fidelity Gaussian process regression and a Bayesian active learning scheme.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T01:20:35Z)
• IMACS: Image Model Attribution Comparison Summaries [16.80986701058596]
  We introduce IMACS, a method that combines gradient-based model attributions with aggregation and visualization techniques. IMACS extracts salient input features from an evaluation dataset, clusters them based on similarity, then visualizes differences in model attributions for similar input features. We show how our technique can uncover behavioral differences caused by domain shift between two models trained on satellite images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T21:35:14Z)
• A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methods [60.04142561088524]
  We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in how reliable automatic metrics truly are. Although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do in some evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T18:28:14Z)
• Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators [77.34726150561087]
  Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several estimators for the average causal effect (ACE) When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T23:09:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.