Can Hyperparameter Tuning Improve the Performance of a Super Learner?
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
BACKGROUND: Super learning is an ensemble machine learning approach used increasingly as an alternative to classical prediction techniques. When implementing super learning, however, not tuning the hyperparameters of the algorithms in it may adversely affect the performance of the super learner. METHODS: In this case study, we used data from a Canadian electronic prescribing system to predict when primary care physicians prescribed antidepressants for indications other than depression. The analysis included 73,576 antidepressant prescriptions and 373 candidate predictors. We derived two super learners: one using tuned hyperparameter values for each machine learning algorithm identified through an iterative grid search procedure and the other using the default values. We compared the performance of the tuned super learner to that of the super learner using default values ("untuned") and a carefully constructed logistic regression model from a previous analysis. RESULTS: The tuned super learner had a scaled Brier score (R) of 0.322 (95% [confidence interval] CI = 0.267, 0.362). In comparison, the untuned super learner had a scaled Brier score of 0.309 (95% CI = 0.256, 0.353), corresponding to an efficiency loss of 4% (relative efficiency 0.96; 95% CI = 0.93, 0.99). The previously-derived logistic regression model had a scaled Brier score of 0.307 (95% CI = 0.245, 0.360), corresponding to an efficiency loss of 5% relative to the tuned super learner (relative efficiency 0.95; 95% CI = 0.88, 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, hyperparameter tuning produced a super learner that performed slightly better than an untuned super learner. Tuning the hyperparameters of individual algorithms in a super learner may help optimize performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it