IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v82y2022ics0047235222000666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The great methods bake-off: Comparing performance of machine learning algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Kigerl, Alex
  • Hamilton, Zachary
  • Kowalski, Melissa
  • Mei, Xiaohan

Abstract

Risk assessments have been constructed using a variety of algorithms, from bivariate associations, to regression, to advanced machine learning (ML) approaches. While promising greater accuracy, agencies are hesitant to adopt tools using newer ML approaches, noting concerns of bias and transparency. Research is needed to identify optimal scenarios for algorithm use in assessment development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kigerl, Alex & Hamilton, Zachary & Kowalski, Melissa & Mei, Xiaohan, 2022. "The great methods bake-off: Comparing performance of machine learning algorithms," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:82:y:2022:i:c:s0047235222000666
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235222000666
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101946?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Berk & Lawrence Sherman & Geoffrey Barnes & Ellen Kurtz & Lindsay Ahlman, 2009. "Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: a high stakes application of statistical learning," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 191-211, January.
    2. Nikolaj Tollenaar & Peter G M van der Heijden, 2019. "Optimizing predictive performance of criminal recidivism models using registration data with binary and survival outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-37, March.
    3. Richard Berk & Hoda Heidari & Shahin Jabbari & Michael Kearns & Aaron Roth, 2021. "Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 3-44, February.
    4. Friedman, Jerome H. & Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Rob, 2010. "Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i01).
    5. N. Tollenaar & P. G. M. van der Heijden, 2013. "Which method predicts recidivism best?: a comparison of statistical, machine learning and data mining predictive models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(2), pages 565-584, February.
    6. Singh, Jay P. & Desmarais, Sarah L. & Sellers, Brian G. & Hylton, Tatiana & Tirotti, Melissa & Van Dorn, Richard A., 2014. "From risk assessment to risk management: Matching interventions to adolescent offenders' strengths and vulnerabilities," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 1-9.
    7. Alwosheel, Ahmad & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Is your dataset big enough? Sample size requirements when using artificial neural networks for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 167-182.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guido Vittorio Travaini & Federico Pacchioni & Silvia Bellumore & Marta Bosia & Francesco De Micco, 2022. "Machine Learning and Criminal Justice: A Systematic Review of Advanced Methodology for Recidivism Risk Prediction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Jiaming Zeng & Berk Ustun & Cynthia Rudin, 2017. "Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(3), pages 689-722, June.
    3. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    4. Ernesto Carrella & Richard M. Bailey & Jens Koed Madsen, 2018. "Indirect inference through prediction," Papers 1807.01579, arXiv.org.
    5. Rui Wang & Naihua Xiu & Kim-Chuan Toh, 2021. "Subspace quadratic regularization method for group sparse multinomial logistic regression," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 531-559, July.
    6. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    7. Masakazu Higuchi & Mitsuteru Nakamura & Shuji Shinohara & Yasuhiro Omiya & Takeshi Takano & Daisuke Mizuguchi & Noriaki Sonota & Hiroyuki Toda & Taku Saito & Mirai So & Eiji Takayama & Hiroo Terashi &, 2022. "Detection of Major Depressive Disorder Based on a Combination of Voice Features: An Exploratory Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-13, September.
    8. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    9. Vincent, Martin & Hansen, Niels Richard, 2014. "Sparse group lasso and high dimensional multinomial classification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 771-786.
    10. Chen, Le-Yu & Lee, Sokbae, 2018. "Best subset binary prediction," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 39-56.
    11. Haoying Wang & Guohui Wu, 2022. "Modeling discrete choices with large fine-scale spatial data: opportunities and challenges," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 325-351, July.
    12. Perrot-Dockès Marie & Lévy-Leduc Céline & Chiquet Julien & Sansonnet Laure & Brégère Margaux & Étienne Marie-Pierre & Robin Stéphane & Genta-Jouve Grégory, 2018. "A variable selection approach in the multivariate linear model: an application to LC-MS metabolomics data," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, October.
    13. Fan, Jianqing & Jiang, Bai & Sun, Qiang, 2022. "Bayesian factor-adjusted sparse regression," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 230(1), pages 3-19.
    14. Jun Li & Serguei Netessine & Sergei Koulayev, 2018. "Price to Compete … with Many: How to Identify Price Competition in High-Dimensional Space," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4118-4136, September.
    15. Sung Jae Jun & Sokbae Lee, 2020. "Causal Inference under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions," Papers 2004.08318, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    16. Rina Friedberg & Julie Tibshirani & Susan Athey & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Local Linear Forests," Papers 1807.11408, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    17. Xiangwei Li & Thomas Delerue & Ben Schöttker & Bernd Holleczek & Eva Grill & Annette Peters & Melanie Waldenberger & Barbara Thorand & Hermann Brenner, 2022. "Derivation and validation of an epigenetic frailty risk score in population-based cohorts of older adults," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Hewamalage, Hansika & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bandara, Kasun, 2021. "Recurrent Neural Networks for Time Series Forecasting: Current status and future directions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 388-427.
    19. Hui Xiao & Yiguo Sun, 2020. "Forecasting the Returns of Cryptocurrency: A Model Averaging Approach," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:82:y:2022:i:c:s0047235222000666. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.