MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092705373 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.09443

Efficient Estimation and Evaluation of Prediction Rules in Semi-Supervised Settings under Stratified Sampling

2020· preprint· en· W3092705373 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Gronsbell, Molei Liu, Lü Tian, Tianxi Cai

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorLeverage (statistics)Computer scienceMissing dataRandom forestData miningConsistency (knowledge bases)Stratified samplingMachine learningSampling (signal processing)Imputation (statistics)Artificial intelligenceBrier scoreRegressionStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many contemporary applications, large amounts of unlabeled data are readily available while labeled examples are limited. There has been substantial interest in semi-supervised learning (SSL) which aims to leverage unlabeled data to improve estimation or prediction. However, current SSL literature focuses primarily on settings where labeled data is selected randomly from the population of interest. Non-random sampling, while posing additional analytical challenges, is highly applicable to many real world problems. Moreover, no SSL methods currently exist for estimating the prediction performance of a fitted model under non-random sampling. In this paper, we propose a two-step SSL procedure for evaluating a prediction rule derived from a working binary regression model based on the Brier score and overall misclassification rate under stratified sampling. In step I, we impute the missing labels via weighted regression with nonlinear basis functions to account for nonrandom sampling and to improve efficiency. In step II, we augment the initial imputations to ensure the consistency of the resulting estimators regardless of the specification of the prediction model or the imputation model. The final estimator is then obtained with the augmented imputations. We provide asymptotic theory and numerical studies illustrating that our proposals outperform their supervised counterparts in terms of efficiency gain. Our methods are motivated by electronic health records (EHR) research and validated with a real data analysis of an EHR-based study of diabetic neuropathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207