further work on methodology
This commit is contained in:
@@ -501,8 +501,10 @@ Note that convolutional models do not require an explicit resampling parameter,
|
||||
(see Section~\ref{subsubsec:temporal_convolution_layer}).
|
||||
|
||||
\paragraph{Model Parameter Tuning}
|
||||
To identify the most suitable configuration for each model architecture, model-specific hyperparameters were tuned for optimal predictive performance.
|
||||
The goal was to balance model complexity and expressiveness in relation to the given input configuration.
|
||||
To identify suitable configurations for each model architecture, model-specific hyperparameters were tuned with the goal of optimizing predictive performance.
|
||||
The selected value ranges were intentionally broad to explore the trade-off between model complexity and generalization.
|
||||
This allowed assessment of whether increased architectural depth and capacity contribute meaningfully to performance,
|
||||
or whether simpler models are sufficient for the task.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}[htbp]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
@@ -555,6 +557,9 @@ joint parameter space in a more efficient and principled manner.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Evaluation}\label{subsec:evaluation}
|
||||
|
||||
A variety of evaluation metrics have been defined, to best capture each aspect of the performance of an ovulation prediction.
|
||||
The evaluation is divided into two subgroups for the two prediction targets, fertility and past-ovulation indicator.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics}\label{subsubsec:evaluation_metrics}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsubsection{Baseline Comparisons}\label{subsubsec:baseline_comparisons}
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user