Effects of numbers of observations and predictors for various model types on the performance of forest inventory with airborne laser scanning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semi- and nonparametric models are popular in the area-based approach (ABA) using airborne laser scanning. It is unclear, however, how many predictors and training plots are needed to provide accurate predictions without overfitting. This work aims to explore these limits for various approaches: ordinary least squares regression (OLS), generalized additive models (GAM), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and Gaussian process regression (GPR). We modeled timber volume (m3·ha–1) for four boreal sites using ABA with 2–39 predictors and 20–500 training plots. OLS, GAM, LASSO, and SVM overfitted as the number of predictors approached the number of training plots. They required ≥15 plots per predictor to provide accurate predictions (RMSE ≤30%). GAM required ≥250 plots regardless of the number of predictors. The number of predictors only mildly affected RF and GPR, but they required ≥200 and ≥250 training plots, respectively. RF did not overfit in any circumstances, whereas GPR overfit even with 500 training plots. Overall, using up to 39 predictors did not generally result in overfit, and for most model types, it resulted in better accuracy for sufficiently large datasets (≥250 plots).
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 | 0.051 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".