← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteAbout the same93 / 280 · beu-d1dd7d71d1af884d

Analysis, Characterization, Prediction and Attribution of Extreme Atmospheric Events with Machine Learning: a Review

Climate and environmental science · 2207.07580v1

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Analysis, Characterization, Prediction and Attribution of Extreme Atmospheric Events with Machine Learning: a Review

3 Review of existing literature

Finally, mixed or hybrid approach : there are different works which have combined both wrapper and filter methodologies to build hybrid approaches. They have shown good performance in specific applications [ 106 , 107 , 108 ] .

…at feature j j is not considered within the subset. Note that using this notation is equivalent to encode the problem as the vector 𝝈 {\boldsymbol{\sigma}} included in Equation ( 24 ). Note also that there are 2 n 2^{n} different subsets (where n n is the total number of features), and the problem is to select the best one in terms of a certain measure, which can be either internal (wrapper methods) or external (filter methods) to the classifier/regressor. Alternative encodings, such as integer vectors, are however also possible, and sometimes even more adequate in some specific applications.

This section critically analyzes and discusses the existing literature related to ML in atmospheric EEs. The methodology applied has been the following: We perform a large number of search queries in

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: About the same

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs are nearly identical and equally usable. The only difference is Output A's 'machine learning methods' versus Output B's 'machine learning' — a trivial variation with no material impact on accuracy, fit, or scope. Both appropriately continue the methodology description by specifying databases and search strategy, fitting the academic context of a literature review on ML in atmospheric extreme events. Both insert naturally without repair. The sources provided (all about feature selection methods) are irrelevant to this specific continuation about search methodology, and neither output makes any claim that would require source verification.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

the main scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar), combining terms related to machine learning with terms describing extreme atmospheric events.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · PowerShap: A Power-Full Shapley Feature Selection Method

Feature selection is a crucial step in developing robust and powerful machine learning models. Feature selection techniques can be divided into two categories: filter and wrapper methods. While wrapper methods commonly result in strong predictive performances, they suffer from a large computational…

Read full passage excerpt

Feature selection is a crucial step in developing robust and powerful machine learning models. Feature selection techniques can be divided into two categories: filter and wrapper methods. While wrapper methods commonly result in strong predictive performances, they suffer from a large computational complexity and therefore take a significant amount of time to complete, especially when dealing with high-dimensional feature sets. Alternatively, filter methods are considerably faster, but suffer from several other disadvantages, such as (i) requiring a threshold value, (ii) not taking into account intercorrelation between features, and (iii) ignoring feature interactions with the model. To this end, we present powershap, a novel wrapper feature selection method, which leverages statistical hypothesis testing and power calculations in combination with Shapley values for quick and intuitive feature selection. Powershap is built on the core assumption that an informative feature will have a …

Card 2 · A Study of Language and Classifier-independent Feature Analysis for Vocal Emotion Recognition

Additionally, in the case of classifier-independent feature selection, using filter methods for feature ranking is not possible, since those methods are independent from the classifier. However, assuming the results obtained using our approach for feature ranking and state-of-the-art filter methods,…

Read full passage excerpt

Additionally, in the case of classifier-independent feature selection, using filter methods for feature ranking is not possible, since those methods are independent from the classifier. However, assuming the results obtained using our approach for feature ranking and state-of-the-art filter methods, the optimal sets of features, which result in reasonably good performance and are language and classifier-independent, are found. On the other hand, wrapper methods, where every subset that is proposed by the subset selection measure is evaluated in the context of the learning algorithm, gives the result that many computationally intensive learning algorithms cannot be used for the classification.

Card 3 · Feature Selection Based on Machine Learning in MRIs for Hippocampal Segmentation

Neurodegenerative diseases are frequently associated with structural changes in the brain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can show these variations and therefore can be used as a supportive feature for a number of neurodegenerative diseases. The hippocampus has been known to be a biomarker f…

Read full passage excerpt

Neurodegenerative diseases are frequently associated with structural changes in the brain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can show these variations and therefore can be used as a supportive feature for a number of neurodegenerative diseases. The hippocampus has been known to be a biomarker for Alzheimer disease and other neurological and psychiatric diseases. However, it requires accurate, robust, and reproducible delineation of hippocampal structures. Fully automatic methods are usually the voxel based approach; for each voxel a number of local features were calculated. In this paper, we compared four different techniques for feature selection from a set of 315 features extracted for each voxel: (i) filter method based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; two wrapper methods, respectively, (ii) sequential forward selection and (iii) sequential backward elimination; and (iv) embedded method based on the Random Forest Classifier on a set of 10 T1-weighted brain MRIs and tested on an …

Card 4 · Embedded all relevant feature selection with Random Ferns

Many machine learning methods can produce variable importance scores expressing the usability of each feature in context of the produced model; those scores on their own are yet not sufficient to generate feature selection, especially when an all relevant selection is required. Although there are wr…

Read full passage excerpt

Many machine learning methods can produce variable importance scores expressing the usability of each feature in context of the produced model; those scores on their own are yet not sufficient to generate feature selection, especially when an all relevant selection is required. Although there are wrapper methods aiming to solve this problem, they introduce a substantial increase in the required computational effort. In this paper I investigate an idea of incorporating all relevant selection within the training process by producing importance for implicitly generated shadows, attributes irrelevant by design. I propose and evaluate such a method in context of random ferns classifier. Experiment results confirm the effectiveness of such approach, although show that fully stochastic nature of random ferns limits its applicability either to small dimensions or as a part of a broader feature selection procedure.

Card 5 · Ensemble-based multi-filter feature selection method for DDoS detection in cloud computing

Widespread adoption of cloud computing has increased the attractiveness of such services to cybercriminals. Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks targeting the cloud’s bandwidth, services and resources to render the cloud unavailable to both cloud providers, and users are a common form of att…

Read full passage excerpt

Widespread adoption of cloud computing has increased the attractiveness of such services to cybercriminals. Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks targeting the cloud’s bandwidth, services and resources to render the cloud unavailable to both cloud providers, and users are a common form of attacks. In recent times, feature selection has been identified as a pre-processing phase in cloud DDoS attack defence which can potentially increase classification accuracy and reduce computational complexity by identifying important features from the original dataset during supervised learning. In this work, we propose an ensemble-based multi-filter feature selection method that combines the output of four filter methods to achieve an optimum selection. We then perform an extensive experimental evaluation of our proposed method using intrusion detection benchmark dataset, NSL-KDD and decision tree classifier. The findings show that our proposed method can effectively reduce the number of feat …

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

the main scientific databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar), combining terms related to machine learning methods with terms describing extreme atmospheric events.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.