MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1730644401 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2005.1556002

Factors of overtraining with fuzzy ARTMAP neural networks

2006· article· en· W1730644401 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Henniges, Éric Granger, Robert Sabourin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005. · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvertrainingArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFuzzy logicTraining setSet (abstract data type)Training (meteorology)Fuzzy setMachine learningClass (philosophy)Pattern recognition (psychology)Data setConvergence (economics)Athletes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the impact of overtraining on the performance of fuzzy ARTMAP neural networks is assessed for pattern recognition problems consisting of overlapping class distributions, and consisting of complex decision boundaries with no overlap. Computer simulations are performed with fuzzy ARTMAP networks trained for one epoch, through cross-validation, and until network convergence, using several data sets representing these pattern recognition problems. By comparing the generalisation error and resources required by these networks, the extent of overtraining due to factors such as data set structure, training strategy, number of training epochs, data normalisation, and training set size, is demonstrated. A significant degradation in fuzzy ARTMAP performance due to overtraining is shown to depend on the training set size and the number of training epochs for pattern recognition problems with overlapping class distributions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005.Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207