MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411991166 · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2025.100696

Feature engineering through two-level genetic algorithm

2025· article· en· W4411991166 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning with Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersMitacs
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Genetic algorithmComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning models are widely used for their high predictive performance, but often lack interpretability. Traditional machine learning methods, such as logistic regression and ensemble models, offer greater interpretability but typically have lower predictive capacity. Feature engineering can enhance the performance of interpretable models by identifying features that optimize classification. However, existing feature engineering methods face limitations: (1) they usually do not apply non-linear transformations to features, ignoring the benefits of non-linear spaces; (2) they usually perform feature selection only once, failing to reduce uncertainty through repeated experiments; and (3) traditional methods like minimum redundancy maximum relevance (mRMR) require additional hyperparameters to define the number of selected features. To address these issues, this study proposed a hierarchical two-level feature engineering approach. In the first level, relevant features were identified using multiple bootstrapped training sets. For each training set, the features were expanded using seven non-linear transformation functions, and the minimum feature set maximizing ensemble model performance was selected using the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II). In the second level, candidate feature sets were aggregated using two strategies. We evaluated our approach on twelve datasets from various fields, achieving an average F1 score improvement of 1.5% while reducing the feature set size by 54.5%. Moreover, our approach outperformed or matched traditional filter-based methods. Our approach is available through a Python library ( feature-gen ), enabling others to benefit from this tool. This study highlights the utility of evolutionary algorithms to generate feature sets that enhance the performance of interpretable machine learning models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it