Rule quality for multiple-rule classifier: Empirical expertise and theoretical methodology1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A rule-inducing learning algorithm may yield either an ordered or unordered set of decision rules. The latter seems to be more understandable by humans and directly applicable in most expert systems or decision-supporting ones. However, classification utilizing the unordered-mode decision rules may be accompanied by some conflict situations, particularly when several rules belonging to different classes match (‘fire’ for) an input to-be-classified (unseen) object. One of the possible solutions to this conflict is to associate each decision rule induced by a learning algorithm with a numerical factor which is commonly called the rule quality. The paper first surveys empirical and statistical formulas of the rule quality and compares their characteristics. Statistical tools such as contingency tables, measures of association, measures of agreement are introduced as suitable vehicles for depicting a behaviour of a decision rule. The above formulas as well as schemes for their combinations are experimentally tested on several well-known AI databases and compared. The covering learning algorithm CN4, a large extension of CN2, is used as an inductive vehicle. After that, theoretical methodology for defining rule qualities and schemes for their combination is acquainted. The general definitions of the notions of a Designer, Learner, and Classifier are presented in a formal matter, including parameters that are usually attached to these concepts such as rule consistency, completeness, quality, matching rate, etc. Hence, we provide the minimum-requirement definitions as necessary conditions for the above concepts. Any designer (decision-system builder) of a new multiple-rule system may start with these minimum requirements. We conclude with a general flow chart for a decision-system builder. He/she can just pursue it and select parameters of a Learner and Classifier, following the minimum characteristics provided.
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 | 0.051 | 0.229 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".