Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Optimizing Ensemble Weights and Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Models for Regression Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tuning hyperparameters inside ensemble-weight optimization, rather than separately, yields better regression predictions, and the paper's GEM-ITH algorithm reports wins on 9 of 10 public datasets.

desk verdict GEM-ITH is a reasonable nested algorithm, but the reported evaluation leaks test labels in Section 5.2, so the central claim of superiority is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05287 v6 pith:ZCAGQURV submitted 2019-08-14 stat.ML cs.LGstat.ME

Mohsen Shahhosseini , Guiping Hu , Hieu Pham This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LGstat.ME
keywords ensemblelearningweightedstackinghyperparameteroptimizationBayesianregressionbias-variancetradeoff
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the standard recipe for building a weighted ensemble—tune each model independently, then combine the tuned models—is suboptimal. It introduces GEM-ITH, a nested procedure that treats hyperparameter settings as part of the search for ensemble weights rather than as a preprocessing step. Across ten public regression datasets, GEM-ITH reports the lowest test mean squared error in nine of ten comparisons, beating simple averaging, the Generalized Ensemble Method, and stacked ensembles with linear regression, random forest, and k-nearest neighbors as meta-learners. The practical stakes are that ensembles, already reliable accuracy boosters, could be pushed further without adding new model families, simply by making the combination step aware of each model's settings.

What carries the argument

The central object is GEM-ITH, a nested optimization algorithm. The outer loop uses Bayesian search to pick b hyperparameter settings for each of k base learners; the inner loop, for each of the b^k combinations, computes out-of-bag predictions from m-fold cross-validation and solves a nonlinear convex program whose decision variables are the ensemble weights, constrained to be nonnegative and sum to one, with mean squared error as the objective. Convexity of that objective over the simplex guarantees that the weight solution is globally optimal for any fixed hyperparameter combination. A separate heuristic builds the base-learner pool: train many models, prune those with above-average error, and keep four diverse, low-correlation models.

What would settle it

Re-run the ten experiments with the test set completely quarantined, selecting base learners and hyperparameters using only training and validation folds, and compare GEM-ITH's test MSE with GEM's; if the margin disappears or reverses, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the best ensemble is not generally made from base learners whose hyperparameters are optimal in isolation. In GEM-ITH, Bayesian search proposes candidate hyperparameter configurations for each base learner; for each combination, m-fold cross-validation produces out-of-bag predictions, and a convex optimization problem finds the nonnegative weights, summing to one, that minimize the weighted ensemble's mean squared error. The configuration and weight vector with the lowest objective value are selected. On the ten datasets, GEM-ITH achieves the lowest test MSE in 9 of 10 cases and improves on the individual base learners' predictions. The paper also reports that for the Energy Efficiency dataset, the hyperparameters GEM-ITH selects differ from the independently tuned values (for example, regression tree max_depth 19 rather than 6, Elastic Net alpha 0.76785 rather than 0.00001), which it takes as direct evidence that internal tuning changes what the ensemble needs.

Load-bearing premise

The procedure assumes the 20 percent holdout test set is reserved for final evaluation only, but the base-model generation step evaluates trial models on those same 'unseen test observations' and prunes weaker models before ensembles are built; if that selection uses the test set, the reported test errors are optimistically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GEM-ITH reports the lowest test MSE on 9 of the 10 datasets when compared with BEM, GEM, stacked regression, stacked random forest, and stacked k-nearest neighbors.
  • The hyperparameters GEM-ITH selects differ from independently tuned values, so the best ensemble components need not be the best standalone models.
  • Joint tuning also improves prediction accuracy relative to each individual base learner on the studied datasets.
  • The Bayesian-search version trades the global-optimality guarantee of grid search for tractability, and its high computation times make it more suitable for small-to-medium datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the joint-tuning effect is real, the same nested argument could be tested for classification losses such as log loss or Brier score, since this paper only considers regression with MSE.
  • An ablation that holds the four base learners fixed across GEM and GEM-ITH would isolate how much of the gain comes from joint hyperparameter tuning versus from the base-model selection heuristic.
  • Warm-starting Bayesian search with individually tuned hyperparameters or pruning unpromising combinations early could cut the reported run times and make GEM-ITH practical on larger datasets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GEM-ITH, a nested optimization algorithm for regression ensembles in which the hyperparameters of each base learner are tuned internally while the ensemble weights are optimized by minimizing MSE. The inner weight problem is a convex quadratic program; Bayesian search limits the hyperparameter search space, and a heuristic selects four diverse, well-performing base learners. The method is evaluated on ten public regression data sets against GEM, BEM, stacked regression, stacked random forest, and stacked k-nearest neighbor, with test MSE reported in Table 3. The paper claims that GEM-ITH achieves the best prediction accuracy among the benchmarks, improves on each base learner, and that its internally tuned hyperparameters differ from those tuned independently.

Significance. The basic idea of jointly tuning hyperparameters and ensemble weights is sensible, and the convexity argument for the inner weight optimization is correct. If the empirical claims were supported by a clean experimental design, the contribution would be practically useful and would extend the GEM framework in a reasonable direction. However, the evaluation protocol has a serious flaw: the held-out test set is used during base-learner selection, and the comparison is not controlled for search budget or variability. As a result, the current paper does not establish its central empirical claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2] The base-model generation heuristic leaks test information. Step 1 of Section 5.2 evaluates trial models 'using unseen test observations', Step 2 prunes models whose prediction error is above average, and Steps 3-5 select four base learners on the basis of those test-set errors. Section 5.1 states that 20% of each data set was reserved for testing and that training and optimization were done on the remaining 80%, but the Section 5.2 procedure uses the same held-out observations to select the models whose predictions are later scored in Table 3. Consequently, Table 3 is a selection report rather than an independent evaluation, and the reported test MSEs are optimistically biased for every method.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Section 5.4] The comparison is not controlled for search budget. GEM-ITH evaluates 12^4 hyperparameter combinations, while GEM and the other benchmarks use a single independently tuned hyperparameter setting per base learner. Any improvement could therefore be due to the much larger number of evaluated configurations rather than to the joint optimization of weights and hyperparameters. A fair comparison would give the benchmark pipelines the same search budget, e.g., by selecting the best of 12^4 independently tuned ensembles on validation folds, or by reporting the performance of GEM-ITH with only the same number of evaluations as the benchmarks.
  3. [Section 5.4, Table 3 and Fig. 2] No measure of variability is reported. Section 5.1 says the entire process was repeated 5 times, yet Table 3 and Fig. 2 show only point estimates, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests. Several reported advantages are very small in relative terms, such as Diabetes (2987.23 vs. 3038.89), Wine Quality (3.62 vs. 3.64), and QSAR Fish Toxicity (6.93 vs. 7.04). Without variability information, the claim of 'almost complete dominance' is not supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4] The claim that GEM-ITH finds hyperparameters different from those tuned independently is demonstrated for only one data set in Table 4. The Conclusion generalizes this claim to all data sets, but no supporting aggregate evidence is provided; a table or figure summarizing differences across all ten data sets would be needed.
  2. [Fig. 2] The normalization used to compute 'normalized error rates' is not defined in the text. Please state how each data set's MSE is scaled before averaging or plotting.
  3. [Global] Table and figure labels are inconsistent: the text uses 'Table.1', 'Table.2', etc., and the bold formatting indicating the best result in Table 3 is not visible in the manuscript. Please standardize the labels and ensure the best values are clearly marked.
  4. [Section 5.2, Table 2] Hyperparameter ranges such as '10^range(-5,0)' and 'linspace(0.01, 5, 20)' are ambiguous about whether endpoints are inclusive and whether values are intended to be log-spaced. Please define the ranges precisely and state the total number of combinations per model.
  5. [References] Reference [51] (Bergstra and Bengio, 2012) is listed but not cited in the text; the Bayesian search discussion cites Bergstra et al. 2013 and Snoek et al. 2012. Please check that all listed references are cited and that citation numbering is consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: GEM-ITH is an empirical model-selection loop whose reported test MSE is not equivalent by construction to its optimization objective; self-citations are minor and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central algorithm minimizes the GEM convex objective [4]/[5] over out-of-fold predictions for each hyperparameter combination chosen by Bayesian search, then selects the combination with lowest objective. This is a legitimate nested model-selection procedure rather than a derivation in which a fitted constant is renamed a prediction; the reported Table 3 test MSE is an external evaluation statistic, not a re-expression of the training objective. The few self-citations ([24], [33], [34], [47]) support standard claims about weighted ensembles and MSE as an objective; none is the sole justification for GEM-ITH or for the empirical comparison against ten external datasets and five benchmarks. One non-circular validity concern is that Section 5.2 evaluates trial models 'using unseen test observations' and prunes models on that basis, so the held-out split may have influenced base-learner selection and the Table 3 comparisons could be optimistically biased; this is experimental leakage rather than circular derivation and does not make the paper's equations self-referential. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circularity step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the standard assumptions of cross-validation and bias-variance decomposition, plus several hand-chosen experimental settings (b=12, k=4, m=5, pruning threshold) and the independence of the test set, which is violated.

free parameters (5)
  • b: number of Bayesian search candidates per learner = 12
    Hand-chosen; the outer search considers 12^4 combinations, which strongly affects both performance and overfitting risk.
  • k: number of base learners = 4
    Hand-chosen via the diversity heuristic; the ensemble comparison is specific to k=4.
  • m: number of cross-validation folds = 5
    Hand-chosen; OOF predictions used for weight and hyperparameter selection depend on the fold structure.
  • R: number of experimental repeats = 5
    Hand-chosen; only averaged MSE is reported, so repeat-level variability is not visible.
  • base-learner pruning threshold = average error of trial models
    The heuristic in Section 5.2 prunes models above the average test error; this threshold is data-dependent and uses test labels.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quadratic weighted-MSE objective over a simplex is convex, so the inner weight problem has a global optimum.
    Section 3, Equations [4]-[5]; relied on for the weight optimization step.
  • domain assumption Out-of-bag cross-validation predictions provide a valid proxy for generalization error when selecting hyperparameters and weights.
    Section 4.1 and Section 5.1; standard but can be biased when many hyperparameter combinations are compared; the paper does not correct for selection.
  • domain assumption The 20% held-out test set is used only for final evaluation.
    Section 5.1 states this, but Section 5.2 evaluates trial models on 'unseen test observations', violating the assumption.
  • domain assumption The four selected base learners are sufficiently accurate and diverse to give a fair comparison.
    Section 5.2 heuristic; no guarantee that the selected set is representative.
  • domain assumption The ten public datasets are representative enough to support a generalizability claim.
    Section 5.4; the conclusion of generalizability depends on this.
  • domain assumption Bayesian search with uniform priors adequately covers the hyperparameter search space.
    Section 5.2; used to reduce the search space, not guaranteed to find globally optimal hyperparameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Ensemble Weights and Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Models for Regression Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCAGQURV

@misc{pith2026190805287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Ensemble Weights and Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Models for Regression Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCAGQURV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05287}
}
read the original abstract

Aggregating multiple learners through an ensemble of models aim to make better predictions by capturing the underlying distribution of the data more accurately. Different ensembling methods, such as bagging, boosting, and stacking/blending, have been studied and adopted extensively in research and practice. While bagging and boosting focus more on reducing variance and bias, respectively, stacking approaches target both by finding the optimal way to combine base learners. In stacking with the weighted average, ensembles are created from weighted averages of multiple base learners. It is known that tuning hyperparameters of each base learner inside the ensemble weight optimization process can produce better performing ensembles. To this end, an optimization-based nested algorithm that considers tuning hyperparameters as well as finding the optimal weights to combine ensembles (Generalized Weighted Ensemble with Internally Tuned Hyperparameters (GEM-ITH)) is designed. Besides, Bayesian search was used to speed-up the optimizing process, and a heuristic was implemented to generate diverse and well-performing base learners. The algorithm is shown to be generalizable to real data sets through analyses with ten publicly available data sets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Maize Yield and Nitrate Loss Prediction with Machine Learning Algorithms

    q-bio.OT 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Machine learning meta-models trained on three million APSIM simulations reproduce maize yields with about 14% error from pre-season data, but nitrate loss predictions remain poor, and reported ensemble gains are partl...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dietterich, T. G. (2000). Ensemble methods in machine learning. Paper presented at the International workshop on multiple classifier systems

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Brown, G., Wyatt, J., Harris, R., & Yao, X. (2005). Diversity creation methods: a survey and categorisation. Information Fusion, 6(1), 5-20

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Töscher, A., & Jahrer, M. (2008). The bigchaos solution to the netflix prize 2008. Netflix Prize, Report

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Niculescu-Mizil, A., Perlich, C., Swirszcz, G., Sindhwani, V., Liu, Y., Melville, P., et al. (2009). Winning the KDD cup orange challenge with ensemble selection. Paper presented at the KDD-Cup 2009 Competition

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Koren, Y. (2009). The bellkor solution to the netflix grand prize. Netflix prize documentation, 81(2009), 1-10

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    -P., Lou, J

    Yu, H.-F., Lo, H.-Y., Hsieh, H. -P., Lou, J. -K., McKenzie, T. G., Chou, J. -W., et al. (2010). Feature engineering and classifier ensemble for KDD cup 2010. Paper presented at the KDD Cup

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    B., & Hyndman, R

    Taieb, S. B., & Hyndman, R. J. (2014). A gradient boosting approach to the Kaggle lo ad forecasting competition. International journal of forecasting, 30(2), 382-394

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Hoch, T. (2015). An Ensemble Learning Approach for the Kaggle Taxi Travel Time Prediction Challenge. Paper presented at the DC@ PKDD/ECML

    work page 2015

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    M., Ya mamoto, T., Lysogorskiy, Y., Blumenthal, L., Hammerschmidt, T., et al

    Sutton, C., Ghiringhelli, L. M., Ya mamoto, T., Lysogorskiy, Y., Blumenthal, L., Hammerschmidt, T., et al. (2018). NOMAD 2018 Kaggle Competition: Solving Materials Science Challenges Through Crowd Sourcing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00085

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kechyn, G., Yu, L., Zang, Y., & Kechyn, S. (2018). S ales forecasting using WaveNet within the framework of the Kaggle competition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04037

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Khaki, S., & Khalilzadeh, Z. (2019). Classification of Crop Tolerance to Heat and Drought: A Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00454

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Khaki, S., & Wang, L. (2019). Crop yield prediction using deep neural networks. Frontiers in plant science, 10, 621

    2019

  5. [13]

    Peykani, P., & Mohammadi, E. (2020). Window Network Data Envelopment Analysis: An Application to Investment Comp anies. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 12 (1), 89-99

    2020

  6. [14]

    Breiman, L. (1996a). Bagging predictors. Machine learning, 24(2), 123-140

    1996

  7. [15]

    Freund, Y. (1995). Boosting a weak learning algorithm by majority. Information and computation, 121(2), 256-285

    1995

  8. [16]

    Wolpert, D. H. (1992). Stacked generalization. Neural networks, 5(2), 241-259

    1992

  9. [17]

    Brown, G. (2017). Ensemble Learning. In C. Sammut & G. I. Webb (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining (pp. 393-402). Boston, MA: Springer US

    2017

  10. [18]

    K., & Salamon, P

    Hansen, L. K., & Salamon, P. (1990). Neural network ensembles. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence (10), 993-1001

    1990

  11. [19]

    Hu, K., Huang, P., Chen, H., & Peng, Y. (2017). KDD CUP 2017 Travel Time Prediction Predicting Travel Time – The Winning Solution of KDD CUP 2017. KDD

    2017

  12. [20]

    Bhasuran, B., Murugesan, G., Abdulkadhar, S., & Natarajan, J. (2016). Stacked ensemble combined with fuzzy matching for biomedical named entity recognition of diseases. Journal of biomedical informatics, 64, 1-9

    2016

  13. [21]

    Ekbal, A., & Saha, S. (2013). Stacked ensemble coupled with feature selection for biomedical entity extraction. Knowledge-Based Systems, 46, 22-32. 20

    2013

  14. [22]

    J., Freimuth, R

    Winham, S. J., Freimuth, R. R., & Biernacka, J. M. (2013). A weighted random forests approach to improve predictive performance. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 6(6), 496-505

    2013

  15. [23]

    S., & Rostamy -Malkhalifeh, M

    Peykani, P., Mohammadi, E., Emrouznejad, A., Pishvaee, M. S., & Rostamy -Malkhalifeh, M. (2019). Fuzzy data envelopment analysis: An adjustable approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 136, 439-452

    2019

  16. [24]

    A., Hu, G., & Archontoulis, S

    Shahhosseini, M., Martinez -Feria, R. A., Hu, G., & Archontoulis, S. V. (2019). Maize yield and nitrate loss prediction with machine learning algorithms. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12), 124026

    2019

  17. [25]

    Large, J., Lines, J., & Bagn all, A. (2019). A probabilistic classifier ensemble weighting scheme based on cross-validated accuracy estimates. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1-36

    2019

  18. [26]

    P., & Cooper, L

    Perrone, M. P., & Cooper, L. N. (1992). When networks disagree: Ensemble methods for hybrid neural networks: BROWN UNIV PROVIDENCE RI INST FOR BRAIN AND NEURAL SYSTEMS

    1992

  19. [27]

    Krogh, A., & Vedelsby, J. (1995). Neural network ensembles, cross validation, and active learning. Paper presented at the Advances in neural information processing systems

    1995

  20. [28]

    Breiman, L. (1996b). Stacked regressions. Machine learning, 24(1), 49-64

    1996

  21. [29]

    Yang, S., & Browne, A. (2004). Neural network ensembles: combining multiple models for enhanced performance using a multistage approach. Expert Systems, 21(5), 279-288

    2004

  22. [30]

    (1998, 4-9 May 1998)

    Jimenez, D. (1998, 4-9 May 1998). Dynamically weighted ensemble neural networks for classification. Paper presented at the 1998 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks Proceedings. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (Cat. No.98CH36227)

    1998

  23. [31]

    -Q., & Kong, F

    Shen, Z. -Q., & Kong, F. -S. (2004). Dynamically weighted ensemble neural networks for regression problems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 2004 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (IEEE Cat. No. 04EX826)

    2004

  24. [32]

    E., et al

    Kim, D., Yu, H., Lee, H., Beighley, E., Durand, M., Alsdorf, D. E., et al. (2019). Ensemble learning regression for estimating river discharges using satellite altimetry data: Central Congo River as a Test-bed. Remote sensing of environment, 221, 741-755

    2019

  25. [33]

    ( 2019a)

    Pham, H., & Olafsson, S. ( 2019a). On Cesaro Averages for Weighted Trees in the Random Forest. Journal of Classification

  26. [34]

    (2019 b)

    Pham, H., & Olafsson, S. (2019 b). Bagged ensembles with tunable parameters. Computational Intelligence, 35(1), 184-203

    2019

  27. [35]

    Belayneh, A., Adamowski, J., Khalil, B., & Quilty, J. (2016). Coupling machine learning methods with wavelet transforms and the bootstrap and boosting ensemble approaches for drought prediction. Atmospheric research, 172, 37-47

    2016

  28. [36]

    L., Fariselli, P., & Casadio, R

    Martelli, P. L., Fariselli, P., & Casadio, R. (2003). An ENSEMBLE ma chine learning approach for the prediction of all-alpha membrane proteins. Bioinformatics, 19(suppl_1), i205-i211

    2003

  29. [37]

    N., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., & Vanschoren, J

    Van Rijn, J. N., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., & Vanschoren, J. (2018). The online performance estimation framework: heterogeneous ensemble lea rning for data streams. [journal article]. Machine Learning, 107(1), 149-176

    2018

  30. [38]

    Zhang, X., & Mahadevan, S. (2019). Ensemble machine learning models for aviation incident risk prediction. Decision Support Systems, 116, 48-63

    2019

  31. [39]

    Conroy, B., Eshelman, L., Potes, C., & Xu -Wilson, M. (2016). A dynamic ensemble approach to robust classification in the presence of missing data. [journal article]. Machine Learning, 102(3), 443-463. 21

    2016

  32. [40]

    Breskvar, M., Kocev, D., & Džeroski, S. (2018). Ensembles for multi -target regression wi th random output selections. [journal article]. Machine Learning, 107(11), 1673-1709

    2018

  33. [41]

    K., Wang, S., & Huang, W

    Yu, L., Lai, K. K., Wang, S., & Huang, W. (2006). A bias-variance-complexity trade-off framework for complex system modeling. Paper presented at the International Confere nce on Computational Science and Its Applications

    2006

  34. [42]

    Puurula, A., Read, J., & Bifet, A. (2014). Kaggle LSHTC4 winning solution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.0546

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hong, T., Pinson, P., & Fan, S. (2014). Global energy forecasting competition 2012: Elsevier

    2014

  36. [44]

    Wang, H., Xu, Q., & Zhou, L. (2015). Large unbalanced credit scoring using Lasso -logistic regression ensemble. PloS one, 10(2), e0117844

    2015

  37. [45]

    Zou, H., Xu, K., Li, J., & Zhu, J. (2017). The Youtube -8M kaggle competition: challenges and methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.09274

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S., Rostamy -Malkhalifeh, M., & Jabbarzadeh, A

    Peykani, P., Mohammadi, E., Pishvaee, M. S., Rostamy -Malkhalifeh, M., & Jabbarzadeh, A. (2018). A novel fuzzy data envelopment analysis based on robust possibilistic programming: possibility, necessity and credibility-based approaches. RAIRO-Oper. Res., 52(4-5), 1445-1463

    2018

  39. [47]

    (2020) Optimizing Ensemble Weights for Machine Learning Models: A Case Study for Housing Price Prediction

    Shahhosseini M., Hu G., Pham H. (2020) Optimizing Ensemble Weights for Machine Learning Models: A Case Study for Housing Price Prediction. In: Yang H., Qiu R., Chen W. (eds) Smart Service Systems, Operations Man agement, and Analytics. INFORMS -CSS 2019. Springer Proceedings i...

    2020

  40. [48]

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J., & Franklin, J. (2005). The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 27(2), 83-85

    2005

  41. [49]

    Zhang, C., & Ma, Y. (2012). Ensemble machine learning: methods and applications: Springer

    2012

  42. [50]

    Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex optimization: Cambridge university press

    2004

  43. [51]

    Bergstra, J., & Bengio, Y. (2012). Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(Feb), 281-305

    2012

  44. [52]

    Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., & Adams, R. P. (2012). Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. Paper presented at the Advances in neural information processing systems

    2012

  45. [53]

    Dua, D., & Graff, C. (2017). UCI machine learning repository (2017). URL http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

    2017

  46. [54]

    , Grisel, O., et al

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B. , Grisel, O., et al. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of machine learning research, 12 (Oct), 2825- 2830

    2011

  47. [55]

    P., Affonso, C., & Sassi, R

    Ferreira, R. P., Affonso, C., & Sassi, R. J. (2010, 16-19 June 2010). Application of a neuro fuzzy network to forecast the behavior of the urban traffic of the city of São Paulo. Paper presented at the 5th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies

    2010

  48. [56]

    Yeh, I. -C. (1998). Modeling of strength of high -performance concrete using artificial neural networks. Cement and Concrete research, 28(12), 1797-1808

    1998

  49. [57]

    Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I., & Tibshirani, R. (2004). Least angle regression. The Annals of statistics, 32(2), 407-499

    2004

  50. [58]

    (2018, 29 -31 Oct

    Arzamasov, V., Böhm, K., & Jochem, P. (2018, 29 -31 Oct. 2018). Towards Concise Models of Grid Stability. Paper presented at the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing Technologies for Smart Grids (SmartGridComm)

    2018

  51. [59]

    Tsanas, A., & Xifara, A. (2012). Accurate quantitative estimation of energy performance of residential buildings using statistical machine learning tools. Energy and Buildings, 49, 560-567. 22

    2012

  52. [60]

    Acharya, M., Armaan, A., & Antony, A. (2019). A Comparison of Regression Models for Prediction of Graduate Admissions. IEEE International Conference on Computat ional Intelligence in Data Science 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Grisoni, F., Consonni, V., Vighi, M., Villa, S., & Todeschini, R. (2016). Investigating the mechanisms of bioconcentration through QSAR classification trees. Environment International, 88, 198-205

    2016

  54. [62]

    Cassotti, M., Ballabio, D., Todeschini, R., & Consonni, V. (2015). A similarity-based QSAR model for predicting acute toxicity towards the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research, 26(3), 217-243

    2015

  55. [63]

    Cortez, P., Cerdeira, A., Almeida, F., M atos, T., & Reis, J. (2009). Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties. Decision Support Systems, 47(4), 547-553

    2009

  56. [64]

    Bergstra, J., Yamins, D., & Cox, D. D. (2013). Making a science of model search: Hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures

    2013

  57. [65]

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., & Peterson, P. (2001). SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python

    2001

  58. [66]

    Clarke, B. (2003). Comparing Bayes model averaging and stacking when model approximation error cannot be ignored (Vol. 4): JMLR.org

    2003

  59. [67]

    Yao, Y., Vehtari, A., Simpson, D., & Gelman, A. (2018). Using Stacking to Average Bayesian Predictive Distributions (with Discussion). Bayesian Anal., 13(3), 917-1007

    2018

  60. [68]

    Matlock, K., De Niz, C., Rahman, R., Ghosh, S., & Pal, R. (2018). Investigation of model stacking for drug sensitivity prediction. BMC Bioinformatics, 19(3), 71

    2018

  61. [69]

    Pavlyshenko, B. M. (2019). Machine -Learning Models for Sales Time Series Forecasting. Data, 4(1), 15

    2019

  62. [70]

    Thøgersen, M., Escalera, S., Gonzàlez, J., & Moeslund, T. B. (2016). Segmentation of RGB -D indoor scenes by stacking random forests and conditional random fields. Pattern Recognition Letters, 80, 208-215

    2016

  63. [71]

    Zhang, C., Yan, J., Li, C., & Bie, R. (2018). Contour detection via stacking random forest learning. Neurocomputing, 275, 2702-2715

    2018

  64. [72]

    Ozay, M., & Yarman -Vural, F. T. (2016). Hierarchical distance learning by stacking nearest neighbor classifiers. Information Fusion, 29, 14-31

    2016

  65. [73]

    Pakrashi, A., & Namee, B. M. (2017). Stacked-MLkNN: A stacking based improv ement to Multi- Label k -Nearest Neighbours . Paper presented at the Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Learning with Imbalanced Domains: Theory and Applications. Retrieved from http://...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.