Measuring the Prediction Difficulty of Individual Cases in a Dataset using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Different levels of prediction difficulty are one of the key factors that researchers encounter when applying machine learning to data. Although previous studies have introduced various metrics for assessing the prediction difficulty of individual cases, these metrics require specific dataset preconditions. Additionally, evaluating these preconditions in real-world datasets can be challenging due to their diversity and complexity. In this paper, we propose three novel metrics for measuring the prediction difficulty of individual cases using fully-connected feedforward neural networks. The new metrics are designed to be universal metrics capable of calculating prediction difficulty in any dataset. The first metric is based on the complexity of the neural network needed to make a correct prediction. The second metric employs a pair of neural networks: one makes a prediction for a given case, and the other predicts whether the prediction made by the first model is likely to be correct. The third metric assesses the variability of the neural network’s predictions. We investigated these metrics using a variety of datasets, visualized their values, and compared them to existing metrics from the literature. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of our metrics across diverse datasets. We expect our metrics will provide researchers with a new perspective on understanding their datasets and applying machine learning in various fields.
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 | 0.011 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".