Updates
🌟 August 2026 Issue Published: New research articles now available in our latest journal issue. Discover cutting-edge findings. Read More 📢 Call for Papers: October 2026: Submit your research for peer review. Open access publishing with global visibility. Read More 🚀 Continental Scholarly Publications: Join our new multidisciplinary research journal platform. Publishing excellence since 2024. Read More 🎯 Special Issue: Digital Health: Call for papers on digital health innovations. Submission deadline: September 15 Read More 💼 Early Career Researcher Support: Special mentorship program and reduced fees for PhD candidates and new researchers. Read More 🔬 New Research Areas Open: Now accepting submissions in AI Ethics, Climate Science, and Public Health Innovation. Read More 🌐 Global Academic Network: Connect with researchers from 65+ countries through Continental Scholarly Publications. Read More ⏰ Fast-Track Peer Review: Accelerated review process available. Get decisions within 3 weeks. Read More

Journal of Statistical and Mathematical Sciences

Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal
Research Article

EVALUATING RIDGE REGRESSION VERSUS PLS REGRESSION: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

Authors & Affiliations
Lars Henrik Jensen
Center for Advanced Data Analysis, Eremitageparken 301, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Published: December 18, 2024
Volume 12, Issue 4 (2024)
Article ID: 784
Peer-Reviewed
Open Access
Abstract

In the realm of statistical modeling, a longstanding debate has persisted regarding Ridge Regression (RR) and Partial Least Squares (PLS) as preferred methodologies. Statisticians argue in favor of RR, rooted in a well-established mathematical foundation, while PLS finds favor among chemometricians due to its reliance on orthogonal variable projection. This divide stems from the unknown statistical properties of PLS. PLS, akin to Canonical Correlation (CC), employs orthogonal vector projection. It focuses on maximizing the covariance between X- and Y-score vectors, in contrast to CC's emphasis on correlation. PLS and CC theories exhibit a close connection. Notably, PLS accommodates situations with more variables than samples, a critical advantage. Validation techniques like cross-validation and test sets are leveraged to affirm results, complemented by graphical tools for data exploration. The seminal work by Frank et al. (1993) compared RR and PLS, concluding a slight preference for RR, albeit with minimal discernible difference. Critics noted the use of simulated data with full rank but small singular values, urging a shift towards real-world chemometric datasets. Subsequent research, searchable on scholar.google.com, has presented mixed findings. Basak et al. (2002) advocate for RR, while Irfan

Full-Text Access

Open-access article — free to read and share.

Publish Your Research in This Journal

Continental Scholarly Publications applies rigorous double-blind peer review to every submission. Our expert editorial board ensures your work meets the highest standards of scholarship before reaching an international readership.

Double-Blind Review Global Indexing Fast Turnaround Open Access DOI Assigned Wide Readership
Submit a Manuscript