From Black Box to Shining Spotlight: Using Random Forest Prediction Intervals to Illuminate the Impact of Assumptions in Linear Regression
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
We introduce a pair of Shiny web applications that allow users to visualize random forest prediction intervals alongside those produced by linear regression models. The apps are designed to help undergraduate students deepen their understanding of the role that assumptions play in statistical modeling by comparing and contrasting intervals produced by regression models with those produced by more flexible algorithmic techniques. We describe the mechanics of each approach, illustrate the features of the apps, provide examples highlighting the insights students can gain through their use, and discuss our experience implementing them in an undergraduate class. We argue that, contrary to their reputation as a black box, random forests can be used as a spotlight, for educational purposes, illuminating the role of assumptions in regression models and their impact on the shape, width, and coverage rates of prediction intervals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 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