House price prediction using clustering and genetic programming along with conducting a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important tasks in machine learning is prediction. Data scientists use different regression methods to find the most appropriate and accurate model for each type of datasets. This study proposes a method to improve accuracy in regression and prediction. In common methods, different models are applied to the whole data to find the best model with higher accuracy. In our proposed approach, first, we cluster data using different methods such as K-means, DBSCAN, and agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithms. Then, for each clustering method and for each generated cluster we apply various regression models including linear and polynomial regressions, SVR, neural network, and symbolic regression in order to find the most accurate model and study the genetic programming potential in improving the prediction accuracy. This model is a combination of clustering and regression. After clustering, the number of samples in each created cluster, compared to the number of samples in the whole dataset is reduced, and consequently by decreasing the number of samples in each group, we lose accuracy. On the other hand, specifying data and setting similar samples in one group enhances the accuracy and decreases the computational cost. As a case study, we used real estate data with 20 features to improve house price estimation; however, this approach is applicable to other large datasets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".