Discovering Accurate and Interesting Classification Rules Using Genetic Algorithm.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discovering accurate and interesting classification rules is a significant task in the post-processing stage of a data mining (DM) process. Therefore, an optimization problem exists between the accuracy and the interesting metrics for post-processing rule sets. To achieve a balance, in this paper, we propose two major post-processing tasks. In the first task, we use a genetic algorithm (GA) to find the best combination of rules that maximizes the predictive accuracy on the sample training set. Thus we obtain the maximized accuracy. In the second task, we rank the rules by assigning objective rule interestingness (RI) measures (or weights) for the rules in the rule set. Henceforth, we propose a pruning strategy using a GA to find the best combination of interesting rules with the maximized (or greater) accuracy. We tested our implementation on three data sets. The results are very encouraging; they demonstrate the applicability and effectiveness of our approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it