Extending Variability-Aware Model Selection with Bias Detection in Machine Learning Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data science projects often involve various machine learning (ML) methods that depend on data, code, and models. One of the key activities in these projects is the selection of a model or algorithm that is appropriate for the data analysis at hand. ML model selection depends on several factors, which include data-related attributes such as sample size, functional requirements such as the prediction algorithm type, and nonfunctional requirements such as performance and bias. However, the factors that influence such selection are often not well understood and explicitly represented. This paper describes ongoing work on extending an adaptive variability-aware model selection method with bias detection in ML projects. The method involves: (i) modeling the variability of the factors that affect model selection using feature models based on heuristics proposed in the literature; (ii) instantiating our variability model with added features related to bias (e.g., bias-related metrics); and (iii) conducting experiments that illustrate the method in a specific case study to illustrate our approach based on a heart failure prediction project. The proposed approach aims to advance the state of the art by making explicit factors that influence model selection, particularly those related to bias, as well as their interactions. The provided representations can transform model selection in ML projects into a non ad hoc, adaptive, and explainable process.
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 | 0.024 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".