Supervised Rank Aggregation (SRA): A Novel Rank AggregationApproach for Ensemble-based Feature Selection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Feature selection (FS) is critical for high dimensional data analysis. Ensemble based feature selection (EFS) is a commonly used approach to develop FS techniques. Rank aggregation (RA) is an essential step in EFS where results from multiple models are pooled to estimate feature importance. However, the literature primarily relies on static rule-based methods to perform this step which may not always provide an optimal feature set. The objective of this study is to improve the EFS performance using dynamic learning in RA step. Method: This study proposes a novel Supervised Rank Aggregation (SRA) approach to allow RA step to dynamically learn and adapt the model aggregation rules to obtain feature importance.Method: This study proposes a novel Supervised Rank Aggregation (SRA) approach to allow RA step to dynamically learn and adapt the model aggregation rules to obtain feature importance. Results: We evaluate the performance of the algorithm using simulation studies and implement it into real research studies, and compare its performance with various existing RA methods. The proposed SRA method provides better or at par performance in terms of feature selection and predictive performance of the model compared to existing methods. Conclusion: SRA method provides an alternative to the existing approaches of RA for EFS. While the current study is limited to the continuous cross-sectional outcome, other endpoints such as longitudinal, categorical, and time-to-event data could also be used.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it