Beyond Accuracy: ROI-driven Data Analytics of Empirical Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This vision paper demonstrates that it is crucial to consider Return-on-Investment (ROI) when performing Data Analytics. Decisions on "How much analytics is needed"? are hard to answer. ROI could guide for decision support on the What?, How?, and How Much? analytics for a given problem. Method: The proposed conceptual framework is validated through two empirical studies that focus on requirements dependencies extraction in the Mozilla Firefox project. The two case studies are (i) Evaluation of fine-tuned BERT against Naive Bayes and Random Forest machine learners for binary dependency classification and (ii) Active Learning against passive Learning (random sampling) for REQUIRES dependency extraction. For both the cases, their analysis investment (cost) is estimated, and the achievable benefit from DA is predicted, to determine a break-even point of the investigation. Results: For the first study, fine-tuned BERT performed superior to the Random Forest, provided that more than 40% of training data is available. For the second, Active Learning achieved higher F1 accuracy within fewer iterations and higher ROI compared to Baseline (Random sampling based RF classifier). In both the studies, estimate on, How much analysis likely would pay off for the invested efforts?, was indicated by the break-even point. Conclusions: Decisions for the depth and breadth of DA of empirical data should not be made solely based on the accuracy measures. Since ROI-driven Data Analytics provides a simple yet effective direction to discover when to stop further investigation while considering the cost and value of the various types of analysis, it helps to avoid over-analyzing empirical 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 | 0.045 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".