MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321603086 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19845-8_3

Comparing and Detecting Stationarity and Dataset Shift

2023· book-chapter· en· W4321603086 on OpenAlexaff
Camilla da Silva, Jed Nisenson, Jeff Boisvert

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer proceedings in earth and environmental sciences · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean-shiftComputer scienceDiscriminative modelMachine learningSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Mean squared errorWorkflowData miningPattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Machine learning algorithms have been increasingly applied to spatial numerical modeling. However, it is important to understand when such methods will underperform. Machine learning algorithms are impacted by dataset shift ; when modeling domains of interest present non-stationarities there is no guarantee that the trained models are effective in unsampled areas. This work aims to compare the stationarity requirement of geostatistical methods to the concept of dataset shift. Also, workflow is developed to detect dataset shift in spatial data prior to modeling, this involves applying a discriminative classifier and a two sample Kolmogorv-Smirnov test to model areas. And, when required a lazy learning modification of support vector regression is proposed to account for dataset shift. The benefits of the lazy learning algorithm are demonstrated on the well-known non-stationary Walker Lake dataset and improves root mean squared error up to 25% relative to standard SVR approach, in areas where dataset shift is present.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer proceedings in earth and environmental sciencesSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207