For an overview of random forests, we refer readers to the works of [10, 17, 26]. Empirical successes have attracted much attention on theoretical explorations of random forests.

For an overview of random forests, we refer readers to the works of [10, 17, 26]. Empirical successes have attracted much attention on theoretical explorations of random forests.

While highly accurate, the resulting predictors are large, slow, and opaque as compared to their constituents.

Reliable risk identification based on driver behavior data underpins real-time safety feedback, fleet risk management, and evaluation of driver-assist systems. While naturalistic driving studies have become foundational for providing real-world driver behavior data, the existing frameworks for identifying risk based on such data have two fundamental limitations: (i) they rely on predefined time windows and fixed thresholds to disentangle risky and normal driving behavior, and (ii) they assume behavior is stationary across drivers and time, ignoring heterogeneity and temporal drift. In practice, these limitations can lead to timing errors and miscalibration in alerts, weak generalization to new drivers/routes/conditions, and higher false-alarm and miss rates, undermining driver trust and reducing safety intervention effectiveness. To address this gap, we propose a unified, context-aware framework that adapts labels and models over time and across drivers via rolling windows, joint optimization, dynamic calibration, and model fusion, tailored for time-stamped kinematic data. The framework is tested using two safety indicators, speed-weighted headway and harsh driving events, and three models: Random Forest, XGBoost, and Deep Neural Network (DNN). Speed-weighted headway yielded more stable and context-sensitive classifications than harsh-event counts. XGBoost maintained consistent performance under changing thresholds, whereas DNN achieved higher recall at lower thresholds but with greater variability across trials. The ensemble aggregated signals from multiple models into a single risk decision, balancing responsiveness to risky behavior with control of false alerts. Overall, the framework shows promise for adaptive, context-aware risk detection that can enhance real-time safety feedback and support driver-focused interventions in intelligent transportation systems.

The present research tackles the difficulty of predicting osteoporosis risk via machine learning (ML) approaches, emphasizing the use of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to improve model transparency. Osteoporosis is a significant public health concern, sometimes remaining untreated owing to its asymptomatic characteristics, and early identification is essential to avert fractures. The research assesses six machine learning classifiers: Random Forest, Logistic Regression, XGBoost, AdaBoost, LightGBM, and Gradient Boosting and utilizes a dataset based on clinical, demographic, and lifestyle variables. The models are refined using GridSearchCV to calibrate hyperparameters, with the objective of enhancing predictive efficacy. XGBoost had the greatest accuracy (91%) among the evaluated models, surpassing others in precision (0.92), recall (0.91), and F1-score (0.90). The research further integrates XAI approaches, such as SHAP, LIME, and Permutation Feature Importance, to elucidate the decision-making process of the optimal model. The study indicates that age is the primary determinant in forecasting osteoporosis risk, followed by hormonal alterations and familial history. These results corroborate clinical knowledge and affirm the models' therapeutic significance. The research underscores the significance of explainability in machine learning models for healthcare applications, guaranteeing that physicians can rely on the system's predictions. The report ultimately proposes directions for further research, such as validation across varied populations and the integration of supplementary biomarkers for enhanced predictive accuracy.

Thank you for all the reviewers time and effort. Thank you for your detailed review. Here, the idea is to re-train our model when new data is available. Here we explain our design space (see additional details in Appendix A.3, B and C); (i) Choice of embedding (joint vs Reviewer 3 Thank you for your review, and for comments regarding experiments, please see above. Thank you for your positive comments regarding the quality of the paper.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/