Most machine learning algorithms are configured by a set of hyperparameters whose values must be carefully chosen and which often considerably impact performance. To avoid a time‐consuming and irreproducible manual process of trial‐and‐error to find well‐performing hyperparameter configurations, various automatic hyperparameter optimization (HPO) methods—for example, based on resampling error estimation for supervised machine learning—can be employed. After introducing HPO from a general perspective, this paper reviews important HPO methods, from simple techniques such as grid or random search to more advanced methods like evolution strategies, Bayesian optimization, Hyperband, and racing. This work gives practical recommendations regarding important choices to be made when conducting HPO, including the HPO algorithms themselves, performance evaluation, how to combine HPO with machine learning pipelines, runtime improvements, and parallelization.This article is categorized under: Algorithmic Development > Statistics Technologies > Machine Learning Technologies > Prediction

Smartphones enjoy high adoption rates around the globe. Rarely more than an arm’s length away, these sensor-rich devices can easily be repurposed to collect rich and extensive records of their users’ behaviors (e.g., location, communication, media consumption), posing serious threats to individual privacy. Here we examine the extent to which individuals’ Big Five personality dimensions can be predicted on the basis of six different classes of behavioral information collected via sensor and log data harvested from smartphones. Taking a machine-learning approach, we predict personality at broad domain ($r_{\text{median}}$ = 0.37) and narrow facet levels ($r_{\text{median}}$ = 0.40) based on behavioral data collected from 624 volunteers over 30 consecutive days (25,347,089 logging events). Our cross-validated results reveal that specific patterns in behaviors in the domains of 1) communication and social behavior, 2) music consumption, 3) app usage, 4) mobility, 5) overall phone activity, and 6) day- and night-time activity are distinctively predictive of the Big Five personality traits. The accuracy of these predictions is similar to that found for predictions based on digital footprints from social media platforms and demonstrates the possibility of obtaining information about individuals’ private traits from behavioral patterns passively collected from their smartphones. Overall, our results point to both the benefits (e.g., in research settings) and dangers (e.g., privacy implications, psychological targeting) presented by the widespread collection and modeling of behavioral data obtained from smartphones. Significance Smartphones are sensor-rich computers that can easily be used to collect extensive records of behaviors, posing serious threats to individuals’ privacy. This study examines the extent to which individuals’ personality dimensions (assessed at broad domain and narrow facet levels) can be predicted from six classes of behavior: 1) communication and social behavior, 2) music consumption, 3) app usage, 4) mobility, 5) overall phone activity, and 6) day- and night-time activity, in a large sample. The cross-validated results show which Big Five personality dimensions are predictable and which specific patterns of behavior are indicative of which dimensions, revealing communication and social behavior as most predictive overall. Our results highlight the benefits and dangers posed by the widespread collection of smartphone data.

Cluster analysis refers to a wide range of data analytic techniques for class discovery and is popular in many application fields. To assess the quality of a clustering result, different cluster validation procedures have been proposed in the literature. While there is extensive work on classical validation techniques, such as internal and external validation, less attention has been given to validating and replicating a clustering result using a validation dataset. Such a dataset may be part of the original dataset, which is separated before analysis begins, or it could be an independently collected dataset. We present a systematic, structured review of the existing literature about this topic. For this purpose, we outline a formal framework that covers most existing approaches for validating clustering results on validation data. In particular, we review classical validation techniques such as internal and external validation, stability analysis, and visual validation, and show how they can be interpreted in terms of our framework. We define and formalize different types of validation of clustering results on a validation dataset, and give examples of how clustering studies from the applied literature that used a validation dataset can be seen as instances of our framework.This article is categorized under: Technologies > Structure Discovery and Clustering Algorithmic Development > Statistics Technologies > Machine Learning

Researchers often perform data-driven variable selection when modeling the associations between an outcome and multiple independent variables in regression analysis. Variable selection may improve the interpretability, parsimony and/or predictive accuracy of a model. Yet variable selection can also have negative consequences, such as false exclusion of important variables or inclusion of noise variables, biased estimation of regression coefficients, underestimated standard errors and invalid confidence intervals, as well as model instability. While the potential advantages and disadvantages of variable selection have been discussed in the literature for decades, few large-scale simulation studies have neutrally compared data-driven variable selection methods with respect to their consequences for the resulting models. We present the protocol for a simulation study that will evaluate different variable selection methods: forward selection, stepwise forward selection, backward elimination, augmented backward elimination, univariable selection, univariable selection followed by backward elimination, and penalized likelihood approaches (Lasso, relaxed Lasso, adaptive Lasso). These methods will be compared with respect to false inclusion and/or exclusion of variables, consequences on bias and variance of the estimated regression coefficients, the validity of the confidence intervals for the coefficients, the accuracy of the estimated variable importance ranking, and the predictive performance of the selected models. We consider both linear and logistic regression in a low-dimensional setting (20 independent variables with 10 true predictors and 10 noise variables). The simulation will be based on real-world data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Publishing this study protocol ahead of performing the simulation increases transparency and allows integrating the perspective of other experts into the study design.

In recent years, unsupervised analysis of microbiome data, such as microbial network analysis and clustering, has increased in popularity. Many new statistical and computational methods have been proposed for these tasks. This multiplicity of analysis strategies poses a challenge for researchers, who are often unsure which method(s) to use and might be tempted to try different methods on their dataset to look for the “best” ones. However, if only the best results are selectively reported, this may cause over-optimism: the “best” method is overly fitted to the specific dataset, and the results might be non-replicable on validation data. Such effects will ultimately hinder research progress. Yet so far, these topics have been given little attention in the context of unsupervised microbiome analysis. In our illustrative study, we aim to quantify over-optimism effects in this context. We model the approach of a hypothetical microbiome researcher who undertakes four unsupervised research tasks: clustering of bacterial genera, hub detection in microbial networks, differential microbial network analysis, and clustering of samples. While these tasks are unsupervised, the researcher might still have certain expectations as to what constitutes interesting results. We translate these expectations into concrete evaluation criteria that the hypothetical researcher might want to optimize. We then randomly split an exemplary dataset from the American Gut Project into discovery and validation sets multiple times. For each research task, multiple method combinations (e.g., methods for data normalization, network generation, and/or clustering) are tried on the discovery data, and the combination that yields the best result according to the evaluation criterion is chosen. While the hypothetical researcher might only report this result, we also apply the “best” method combination to the validation dataset. The results are then compared between discovery and validation data. In all four research tasks, there are notable over-optimism effects; the results on the validation data set are worse compared to the discovery data, averaged over multiple random splits into discovery/validation data. Our study thus highlights the importance of validation and replication in microbiome analysis to obtain reliable results and demonstrates that the issue of over-optimism goes beyond the context of statistical testing and fishing for significance.

When researchers publish new cluster algorithms, they usually demonstrate the strengths of their novel approaches by comparing the algorithms’ performance with existing competitors. However, such studies are likely to be optimistically biased towards the new algorithms, as the authors have a vested interest in presenting their method as favorably as possible in order to increase their chances of getting published. Therefore, the superior performance of newly introduced cluster algorithms is over-optimistic and might not be confirmed in independent benchmark studies performed by neutral and unbiased authors. This problem is known among many researchers, but so far, the different mechanisms leading to over-optimism in cluster algorithm evaluation have never been systematically studied and discussed. Researchers are thus often not aware of the full extent of the problem. We present an illustrative study to illuminate the mechanisms by which authors—consciously or unconsciously—paint their cluster algorithm’s performance in an over-optimistic light. Using the recently published cluster algorithm Rock as an example, we demonstrate how optimization of the used datasets or data characteristics, of the algorithm’s parameters and of the choice of the competing cluster algorithms leads to Rock’s performance appearing better than it actually is. Our study is thus a cautionary tale that illustrates how easy it can be for researchers to claim apparent “superiority” of a new cluster algorithm. This illuminates the vital importance of strategies for avoiding the problems of over-optimism (such as, e.g., neutral benchmark studies), which we also discuss in the article.