MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967018744 · doi:10.1109/icmla.2012.79

Supervised Dictionary Learning via Non-negative Matrix Factorization for Classification

2012· article· en· W1967018744 on OpenAlexaff
Yifeng Li, Alioune Ngom

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMatrix decompositionArtificial intelligenceNeural codingSparse approximationK-SVDPattern recognition (psychology)Dictionary learningRegularization (linguistics)Machine learningNon-negative matrix factorizationComputationSparse matrixAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sparse representation (SR) has been being applied as a state-of-the-art machine learning approach. Sparse representation classification (SRC1) approaches based on l <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> norm regularization and non-negative-least-squares (NNLS) classification approach based on non-negativity have been proposed to be powerful and robust. However, these approaches are extremely slow when the size of training samples is very large, because both of them use the whole training set as dictionary. In this paper, we briefly survey the existing SR techniques for classification, and then propose a fast approach which uses non-negative matrix factorization as supervised dictionary learning method and NNLS as non-negative sparse coding method. Experiment shows that our approach can obtain comparable accuracy with the benchmark approaches and can dramatically speed up the computation particularly in the case of large sample size and many classes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207