How to out-perform default random forest regression: choosing hyperparameters for applications in large-sample hydrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Predictions are a central part of water resources research. Despite their strong theoretical basis, the effective application of physically based models to catchment-scale processes remains an ongoing challenge and there are some important prediction problems that are not easily amenable to a first-principles representation. As such, machine learning (ML) models have been seen as a valid alternative in recent years. In spite of their availability, well-optimized state-of-the-art ML strategies are not widely used in water resources research. Further, some analyses require many model trainings, so sometimes computational time prevents properly optimized hyperparameters. To leverage data and use it effectively to drive scientific advances in the field, it is essential to make ML models accessible to users that may lack a deep understanding of ML by improving automated machine learning resources. ML models such as XGBoost have been recently shown to outperform random forest (RF) models which are traditionally used in water resources research. In this study, based on over 150 water-related datasets, we extensively compare XGBoost and RF. This study provides water scientists with access to quick user-friendly RF and XGBoost model optimization.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".