MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603688956 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2005.1556070

Feature subset selection via multi-objective genetic algorithm

2006· article· en· W1603688956 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005. · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBackpropagationGenetic algorithmFeature selectionFeature (linguistics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Population-based incremental learningAlgorithmArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Pareto principleData miningPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-world datasets tend to be complex, large in size, and may contain many irrelevant features. Eliminating such irrelevant features can significantly improve the performance of a data mining algorithm. In this paper, we propose a multi-objective genetic algorithm that finds a set of Pareto-optimal feature subsets that works as a wrapper around a standard back-propagation algorithm. We also introduce a novel mechanism called the least-crowded selection algorithm that maximizes the diversity of the solutions returned by the algorithm. We justify the proposed method by theoretically and empirically comparing it to the backpropagation neural network and the simple genetic algorithm for feature selection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it