Bootstrapping and multiple imputation ensemble approaches for classification problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presence of missing values in a dataset can adversely affect the performance of a classifier. Single and Multiple Imputation are normally performed to fill in the missing values. In this paper, we present several variants of combining single and multiple imputation with bootstrapping to create ensembles that can model uncertainty and diversity in the data, and that are robust to high missingness in the data. We present three ensemble strategies: bootstrapping on incomplete data followed by (i) single imputation and (ii) multiple imputation, and (iii) multiple imputation ensemble without bootstrapping. We perform an extensive evaluation of the performance of the these ensemble strategies on eight datasets by varying the missingness ratio. Our results show that bootstrapping followed by multiple imputation using expectation maximization is the most robust method even at high missingness ratio (up to 30%). For small missingness ratio (up to 10%) most of the ensemble methods perform equivalently but better than single imputation. Kappa-error plots suggest that accurate classifiers with reasonable diversity is the reason for this behaviour. A consistent observation in all the datasets suggests that for small missingness (up to 10%), bootstrapping on incomplete data without any imputation produces equivalent results to other ensemble methods.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".