MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210655835 · doi:10.1080/02664763.2022.2031125

The Kendall interaction filter for variable interaction screening in high dimensional classification problems

2022· article· en· W4210655835 on OpenAlexafffund
Youssef Anzarmou, Abdallah Mkhadri, Karim Oualkacha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsCategorical variableComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Monotonic functionVariable (mathematics)Identification (biology)InteractionFilter (signal processing)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accounting for important interaction effects can improve the prediction of many statistical learning models. Identification of relevant interactions, however, is a challenging issue owing to their ultrahigh-dimensional nature. Interaction screening strategies can alleviate such issues. However, due to heavier tail distribution and complex dependence structure of interaction effects, innovative robust and/or model-free methods for screening interactions are required to better scale analysis of complex and high-throughput data. In this work, we develop a new model-free interaction screening method, termed Kendall Interaction Filter (KIF), for the classification in high-dimensional settings. KIF method suggests a weighted-sum measure, which compares the overall to the within-cluster Kendall's τ of pairs of predictors, to select interactive couples of features. The proposed KIF measure captures relevant interactions for the clusters response-variable, handles continuous, categorical or a mixture of continuous-categorical features, and is invariant under monotonic transformations. The tKIF measure enjoys the sure screening property in the high-dimensional setting under mild conditions, without imposing sub-exponential moment assumptions on the features' distribution. We illustrate the favorable behavior of the proposed methodology compared to the methods in the same category using simulation studies, and we conduct real data analyses to demonstrate its utility.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied StatisticsSame topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207