The great methods bake-off: Comparing performance of machine learning algorithms
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Kigerl et al. (2022) found that sample size has a greater influence than algorithmic complexity.
“Sample size has a greater influence than algorithm ic complexit y.”
From Scoping review on the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning with structured instruments to predict juvenile recidivism (2026) · cites this paper as Kigerl et al., 2022
Kigerl et al. (2022) found that differences between model families are marginal (<0.01).
“The difference s between model families are marginal (<0.01).”
From Scoping review on the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning with structured instruments to predict juvenile recidivism (2026) · cites this paper as Kigerl et al., 2022
The argument that the implementation of AI/ML will lead to a substantial improvement in accuracy within the juvenile justice system does not appear to be consistently supported by the currently available evidence.
“Consequently, the argument that the implementation of AI/ML will lead to a substantial improvement in accuracy within the juvenile justice system does not appear to be consistently supported by the currently available evidence (Kigerl et al., 2022;Sheppard et al., 2024).”
From Scoping review on the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning with structured instruments to predict juvenile recidivism (2026) · cites this paper as Kigerl et al., 2022
The transition from traditional statistical models to complex AI/ML architectures yields only marginal improvements in studies with large samples and preventative approaches.
“The results of studies with large samples (Kigerl et al., 2022) and preventative approaches (Sheppard et al., 2024) demonstrate that the transition from traditional statistical models to complex AI/ML architectures yields only marginal improvements.”
From Scoping review on the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning with structured instruments to predict juvenile recidivism (2026) · cites this paper as Kigerl et al., 2022
Virtually identical performance was documented between complex techniques and traditional approaches such as logistic regression, especially when the sample size is large, or the evaluated scenario reduces predictive variability.
“Virtually identical performance was documented between complex techniques and traditional approaches such as logistic regression, especially when the sample size is large, or the evaluated scenario reduces predictive variability (Kigerl et al., 2022;Sheppard et al., 2024).”
From Scoping review on the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning with structured instruments to predict juvenile recidivism (2026) · cites this paper as Kigerl et al., 2022
Cites
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7 · Cited by 1,608 · see citing works
Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2021) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124118782533 · Cited by 988 · see citing works
Berk, R., Sherman, L., Barnes, G., Kurtz, E., & Ahlman, L. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00556.x · Cited by 178 · see citing works
An impact assessment of machine learning risk forecasts on parole board decisions and recidivism
Berk, R. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-017-9286-2 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Argudo Palacios, A., & Mechraoui, A. (2026) · Cuadernos de RES PUBLICA en derecho y criminología · doi:10.46661/respublica.13244
“…there is a wide variety of methods used, ranging from the type of artificial intelligence chosen to how exactly recidivism is defined or at what stage of the trial the prediction is made (Eaglin, 2016; Engel & Grgić-Hlača, 2021; Greene et al., 2022; Kigerl et al., 2022; Travaini et al., 2022).”
Influential
- Authors
- Kigerl, A., Hamilton, Z., Kowalski, M., & Mei, X.
- Affiliations
- University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
- California State University Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hamilton, Zachary
- Venue
- Journal of Criminal Justice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-09
- Volume
- 82
- Pages
- 101946
- ISSN
- 0047-2352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4281619588
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Keywords
- risk assessment, machine learning, algorithm comparison, sample size, base rates, stacking, artificial neural networks, random forest, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, penalized regression, logistic regression, model transparency, algorithmic bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review