Entropy Ensemble Filter: Does information content assessment of bootstrapped training datasets before model training lead to better trade-off between ensemble size and predictive performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning is the fast-growing branch of data-driven models, and its main objective is to use computational methods to become more accurate in predicting outcomes without being explicitly programmed. In this field, a way to improve model predictions is to use a large collection of models (called ensemble) instead of a single one. Each model is then trained on slightly different samples of the original data, and their predictions are averaged. This is called bootstrap aggregating, or Bagging, and is widely applied. A recurring question in previous works was: how to choose the ensemble size of training data sets for tuning the weights in machine learning? The computational cost of ensemble-based methods scales with the size of the ensemble, but excessively reducing the ensemble size comes at the cost of reduced predictive performance. The choice of ensemble size was often determined based on the size of input data and available computational power, which can become a limiting factor for larger datasets and complex models’ training. In this research, it is our hypothesis that if an ensemble of artificial neural networks (ANN) models or any other machine learning technique uses the most informative ensemble members for training purpose rather than all bootstrapped ensemble members, it could reduce the computational time substantially without negatively affecting the performance of simulation.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".