MSEBAG: a dynamic classifier ensemble generation based on ‘minimum-sufficient ensemble' and bagging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a dynamic classifier system, MSEBAG, which is characterised by searching for the ‘minimum-sufficient ensemble’ and bagging at the ensemble level. It adopts an ‘over-generation and selection’ strategy and aims to achieve a good bias–variance trade-off. In the training phase, MSEBAG first searches for the ‘minimum-sufficient ensemble’, which maximises the in-sample fitness with the minimal number of base classifiers. Then, starting from the ‘minimum-sufficient ensemble’, a backward stepwise algorithm is employed to generate a collection of ensembles. The objective is to create a collection of ensembles with a descending fitness on the data, as well as a descending complexity in the structure. MSEBAG dynamically selects the ensembles from the collection for the decision aggregation. The extended adaptive aggregation (EAA) approach, a bagging-style algorithm performed at the ensemble level, is employed for this task. EAA searches for the competent ensembles using a score function, which takes into consideration both the in-sample fitness and the confidence of the statistical inference, and averages the decisions of the selected ensembles to label the test pattern. The experimental results show that the proposed MSEBAG outperforms the benchmarks on average.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".