Bootstrap rank‐ordered conditional mutual information (broCMI): A nonlinear input variable selection method for water resources modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The input variable selection problem has recently garnered much interest in the time series modeling community, especially within water resources applications, demonstrating that information theoretic (nonlinear)‐based input variable selection algorithms such as partial mutual information (PMI) selection (PMIS) provide an improved representation of the modeled process when compared to linear alternatives such as partial correlation input selection (PCIS). PMIS is a popular algorithm for water resources modeling problems considering nonlinear input variable selection; however, this method requires the specification of two nonlinear regression models, each with parametric settings that greatly influence the selected input variables. Other attempts to develop input variable selection methods using conditional mutual information (CMI) (an analog to PMI) have been formulated under different parametric pretenses such as k nearest‐neighbor (KNN) statistics or kernel density estimates (KDE). In this paper, we introduce a new input variable selection method based on CMI that uses a nonparametric multivariate continuous probability estimator based on Edgeworth approximations (EA). We improve the EA method by considering the uncertainty in the input variable selection procedure by introducing a bootstrap resampling procedure that uses rank statistics to order the selected input sets; we name our proposed method bootstrap rank‐ordered CMI (broCMI). We demonstrate the superior performance of broCMI when compared to CMI‐based alternatives (EA, KDE, and KNN), PMIS, and PCIS input variable selection algorithms on a set of seven synthetic test problems and a real‐world urban water demand (UWD) forecasting experiment in Ottawa, Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".