RFpredInterval: An R Package for Prediction Intervals with Random Forests and Boosted Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many predictive models, random forests provide point predictions for new observations. Besides the point prediction, it is important to quantify the uncertainty in the prediction. Prediction intervals provide information about the reliability of the point predictions. We have developed a comprehensive R package, [RFpredInterval](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RFpredInterval), that integrates 16 methods to build prediction intervals with random forests and boosted forests. The set of methods implemented in the package includes a new method to build prediction intervals with boosted forests (PIBF) and 15 method variations to produce prediction intervals with random forests, as proposed by [@roy_prediction_2020]. We perform an extensive simulation study and apply real data analyses to compare the performance of the proposed method to ten existing methods for building prediction intervals with random forests. The results show that the proposed method is very competitive and, globally, outperforms competing 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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.027 |
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".