Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gradient boosting algorithms construct a regression predictor using a linear combination of ``base learners''. Boosting also offers an approach to obtaining robust non-parametric regression estimators that are scalable to applications with many explanatory variables. The robust boosting algorithm is based on a two-stage approach, similar to what is done for robust linear regression: it first minimizes a robust residual scale estimator, and then improves it by optimizing a bounded loss function. Unlike previous robust boosting proposals this approach does not require computing an ad-hoc residual scale estimator in each boosting iteration. Since the loss functions involved in this robust boosting algorithm are typically non-convex, a reliable initialization step is required, such as an L1 regression tree, which is also fast to compute. A robust variable importance measure can also be calculated via a permutation procedure. Thorough simulation studies and several data analyses show that, when no atypical observations are present, the robust boosting approach works as well as the standard gradient boosting with a squared loss. Furthermore, when the data contain outliers, the robust boosting estimator outperforms the alternatives in terms of prediction error and variable selection accuracy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".