Empirical Comparison of Nonparametric Regression Estimates on Real Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of nine different nonparametric regression estimates is empirically compared on ten different real datasets. The number of data points in the real datasets varies between 7, 900 and 18, 000, where each real dataset contains between 5 and 20 variables. The nonparametric regression estimates include kernel, partitioning, nearest neighbor, additive spline, neural network, penalized smoothing splines, local linear kernel, regression trees, and random forests estimates. The main result is a table containing the empirical L2 risks of all nine nonparametric regression estimates on the evaluation part of the different datasets. The neural networks and random forests are the two estimates performing best. The datasets are publicly available, so that any new regression estimate can be easily compared with all nine estimates considered in this article by just applying it to the publicly available data and by computing its empirical L2 risks on the evaluation part of the datasets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it