Comparison of methods for tuning machine learning model hyper-parameters: with application to predicting high-need high-cost health care users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Supervised machine learning is increasingly being used to estimate clinical predictive models. Several supervised machine learning models involve hyper-parameters, whose values must be judiciously specified to ensure adequate predictive performance. Objective To compare several (nine) hyper-parameter optimization (HPO) methods, for tuning the hyper-parameters of an extreme gradient boosting model, with application to predicting high-need high-cost health care users. Methods Extreme gradient boosting models were estimated using a randomly sampled training dataset. Models were separately trained using nine different HPO methods: 1) random sampling, 2) simulated annealing, 3) quasi-Monte Carlo sampling, 4-5) two variations of Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization via tree-Parzen estimation, 6-7) two implementations of Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization via Gaussian processes, 8) Bayesian hyper-parameter optimization via random forests, and 9) the covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy. For each HPO method, we estimated 100 extreme gradient boosting models at different hyper-parameter configurations; and evaluated model performance using an AUC metric on a randomly sampled validation dataset. Using the best model identified by each HPO method, we evaluated generalization performance in terms of discrimination and calibration metrics on a randomly sampled held-out test dataset (internal validation) and a temporally independent dataset (external validation). Results The extreme gradient boosting model estimated using default hyper-parameter settings had reasonable discrimination (AUC=0.82) but was not well calibrated. Hyper-parameter tuning using any HPO algorithm/sampler improved model discrimination (AUC=0.84), resulted in models with near perfect calibration, and consistently identified features predictive of high-need high-cost health care users. Conclusions In our study, all HPO algorithms resulted in similar gains in model performance relative to baseline models. This finding likely relates to our study dataset having a large sample size, a relatively small number of features, and a strong signal to noise ratio; and would likely apply to other datasets with similar characteristics.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".