Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classical and most commonly used approach to building prediction intervals is the parametric approach. However, its main drawback is that its validity and performance highly depend on the assumed functional link between the covariates and the response. This research investigates new methods that improve the performance of prediction intervals with random forests. Two aspects are explored: The method used to build the forest and the method used to build the prediction interval. Four methods to build the forest are investigated, three from the classification and regression tree (CART) paradigm and the transformation forest method. For CART forests, in addition to the default least-squares splitting rule, two alternative splitting criteria are investigated. We also present and evaluate the performance of five flexible methods for constructing prediction intervals. This yields 20 distinct method variations. To reliably attain the desired confidence level, we include a calibration procedure performed on the out-of-bag information provided by the forest. The 20 method variations are thoroughly investigated, and compared to five alternative methods through simulation studies and in real data settings. The results show that the proposed methods are very competitive. They outperform commonly used methods in both in simulation settings and with real data.
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 | 0.020 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".