Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This volume contains the papers accepted to the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2008). ICML is the annual conference of the International Machine Learning Society (IMLS), and provides a venue for the presentation and discussion of current research in the field of machine learning. These proceedings can also be found online at http://www.machinelearning.org. This year, ICML was held July 5..9 at the University of Helsinki, in Helsinki, Finland, and was co-located with COLT-2008, the 21st Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, and UAI-2008, the 24th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. No less than 583 papers were submitted to ICML 2008. There was a very thorough review process, in which each paper was reviewed double-blind by three program committee (PC) members. Authors were able to respond to the initial reviews, and the PC members could then modify their reviews based on online discussions and the content of this author response. There were two discussion periods led by the senior program committee (SPC), one just before and one after the submission of author responses. At the end of the second discussion period, the SPC members gave their recommendations and provided a summary review for each of their papers. Some papers were checked by the SPCs to ensure that reviewer comments had been addressed. Apart from the length restrictions on papers and the compressed time frame, the review process for ICML resembles that of many journal publications. In total, 158 papers were accepted to ICML this year, including a small number of papers which were initially conditionally accepted, yielding an overall acceptance rate of 27%. ICML authors presented their papers both orally and in a poster session, allowing time for detailed discussions with any interested attendees of the conference. Each day of the main conference included one or two invited talks by a prominent researcher. We were very fortunate to be able to host Michael Collins, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Andrew Ng, of Stanford University; and Luc De Raedt, of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, and John Winn of Microsoft Research Cambridge. In addition to the technical talks, ICML- 2008 also included nine tutorials held before the main conference, presented by Alex Smola, Arthur Gretton, and Kenji Fukumizu; Bert Kappen and Marc Toussaint; Neil Lawrence; MartinWainwright; Ralf Herbrich and Thore Graepel; Andreas Krause and Carlos Guestrin; Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Yoram Singer; Rob Fergus; and Matthias Seeger. This year our workshops were organized jointly with COLT and UAI as part of a special overlap day, consisting of eleven workshops selected and arranged collaboratively by the respective workshop chairs of the three conferences. This day provided a rich opportunity for interaction among the attendees of the conferences. This year, ICML enlarged its award offerings to match several other well-established conferences. We hope these will help build our community, celebrate our advances, and encourage applications and long-term thinking. In addition to our previously traditional Paper and Student Paper awards, we also gave awards for Application Paper and 10-year Best Paper (for the best paper of ICML 1998, optionally given in conjunction with a co-located conference). We thank the Machine Learning Journal for sponsoring some of our paper awards.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,105 | 0,068 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».