Entropy Ensemble Filter: A Modified Bootstrap Aggregating (Bagging) Procedure to Improve Efficiency in Ensemble Model Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, the Bootstrap AGGregatING (bagging) method has been widely used for improving simulation. The computational cost of this method scales with the size of the ensemble, but excessively reducing the ensemble size comes at the cost of reduced predictive performance. The novel procedure proposed in this study is the Entropy Ensemble Filter (EEF), which uses the most informative training data sets in the ensemble rather than all ensemble members created by the bagging method. The results of this study indicate efficiency of the proposed method in application to synthetic data simulation on a sinusoidal signal, a sawtooth signal, and a composite signal. The EEF method can reduce the computational time of simulation by around 50% on average while maintaining predictive performance at the same level of the conventional method, where all of the ensemble models are used for simulation. The analysis of the error gradient (root mean square error of ensemble averages) shows that using the 40% most informative ensemble members of the set initially defined by the user appears to be most effective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".