Interpretable and predictive models based on high-dimensional data in ecology and evolution
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
Abstract The proliferation of high-dimensional data in ecology and evolutionary biology raises the promise of statistical and machine learning models that are highly predictive and interpretable. However, high-dimensional data are commonly burdened with an inherent trade-off: in-sample prediction of outcomes will improve as additional variables are included in the model, but this may come at the cost of poor predictive accuracy and limited generalizability for future or unsampled observations (out-of-sample prediction). To confront this problem of overfitting, sparse models can focus on key variables by correctly placing low weight on unimportant variables. We competed nine methods to quantify their performance in variable selection and prediction using simulated data with different sample sizes, numbers of variables, and strengths of effects. Overfitting was typical for many methods and simulation scenarios. Despite this, in-sample and out-of-sample prediction converged on the true predictive target for simulations with more observations, larger causal effects, and fewer variables. Accurate variable selection to support process-based understanding will be unattainable for many realistic sampling schemes in ecology and evolution. We use our analyses to characterize data attributes for which statistical learning is possible, and illustrate how some sparse methods can achieve predictive accuracy while mitigating and learning the extent of overfitting.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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