Adversarially-Regularized Mixed Effects Deep Learning (ARMED) Models Improve Interpretability, Performance, and Generalization on Clustered (non-<i>iid</i>) Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural science datasets frequently violate assumptions of independence. Samples may be clustered (e.g., by study site, subject, or experimental batch), leading to spurious associations, poor model fitting, and confounded analyses. While largely unaddressed in deep learning, this problem has been handled in the statistics community through mixed effects models, which separate cluster-invariant fixed effects from cluster-specific random effects. We propose a general-purpose framework for Adversarially-Regularized Mixed Effects Deep learning (ARMED) models through non-intrusive additions to existing neural networks: 1) an adversarial classifier constraining the original model to learn only cluster-invariant features, 2) a random effects subnetwork capturing cluster-specific features, and 3) an approach to apply random effects to clusters unseen during training. We apply ARMED to dense, convolutional, and autoencoder neural networks on 4 datasets including simulated nonlinear data, dementia prognosis and diagnosis, and live-cell image analysis. Compared to prior techniques, ARMED models better distinguish confounded from true associations in simulations and learn more biologically plausible features in clinical applications. They can also quantify inter-cluster variance and visualize cluster effects in data. Finally, ARMED matches or improves performance on data from clusters seen during training (5-28% relative improvement) and generalization to unseen clusters (2-9% relative improvement) versus conventional models.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".