MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050730069 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v4n2p132

Best Predictive Generalized Linear Mixed Model with Predictive Lasso for High-Speed Network Data Analysis

2015· article· en· W2050730069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kejia Hu, Jaesik Choi, Alex Sim, Jiming Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningAdvanced Scientific Computing ResearchNational Research FoundationUniversity of CyprusNational Research Foundation of KoreaU.S. Department of EnergyNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeneralized linear mixed modelComputer scienceLasso (programming language)ComputationGeneralized linear modelPredictive modellingRegularization (linguistics)Model selectionAlgorithmMachine learningMathematical optimizationData miningMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimizing network usage is important to maximize the network performance. When the network usage grows rapidly, it is important to build an accurate predictive model. We present a new predictive algorithm which can analyze the network performance in various network conditions and traffic patterns. Our approach is based on the best predictive generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). The parameters of the best predictive GLMM are estimated by minimizing the mean squared prediction error (MSPE). To expedite the parameter learning with the big data collected through the network, our algorithm introduced regularization, LASSO, and an innovative bootstrap. The merits of our new approach validated through data and simulation are that (1) the highest prediction accuracy even under a model misspecification; and (2) the least computation time compared to the Estimation-oriented GLMM with Lasso and Stepwise Selection GLMM. A major computational advantage of our method is that, unlike some of the current approaches, our method does not require the EM (Expectation-Maximization algorithm) procedure.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207