Boosting Prediction with Data Missing Not at Random
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
Boosting has emerged as a useful machine learning technique over the past three decades, attracting increased attention. Most advancements in this area, however, have primarily focused on numerical implementation procedures, often lacking rigorous theoretical justifications. Moreover, these approaches are generally designed for datasets with fully observed data, and their validity can be compromised by the presence of missing observations. In this article, we employ semiparametric estimation approaches to develop boosting prediction methods for data with missing responses. We explore two strategies for adjusting the loss functions to account for missingness effects. The proposed methods are implemented using a functional gradient descent algorithm, and their theoretical properties, including algorithm convergence and estimator consistency, are rigorously established. Numerical studies demonstrate that the proposed methods perform well in finite sample settings. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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