Testing Bayes Error Rate Estimators in Difficult Situations Using Monte Carlo Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bayes Error Rate (BER) is the fundamental limit on the achievable generalizable classification accuracy of any machine learning model due to inherent uncertainty within the data. BER estimators offer insight into the difficulty of any classification problem and set expectations for optimal classification performance. In order to be useful, the estimators must also be accurate with a limited number of samples on multivariate problems with unknown class distributions. To determine which estimators meet the minimum requirements for “usefulness”, an in-depth examination of their accuracy is conducted using Monte Carlo simulations with synthetic data in order to obtain their confidence bounds for binary classification. To examine the usability of the estimators for real-world applications, new non-linear multi-modal test scenarios are introduced. In each scenario, 2500 Monte Carlo simulations per scenario are run over a wide range of BER values. In a comparison of k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN), Generalized Henze-Penrose (GHP) divergence and Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) techniques, results show that kNN is overwhelmingly the more accurate non-parametric estimator. In order to reach the target of an under 5% range for the 95% confidence bounds, the minimum number of required samples per class is 1000. As more features are added, more samples are needed, so that 2500 samples per class are required at only 4 features. Other estimators do become more accurate than kNN as more features are added, but continuously fail to meet the target range.
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 | 0.032 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".