USING INSTANCE CLONING TO IMPROVE NAIVE BAYES FOR RANKING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving naive Bayes (simply NB)15,28 for classification has received significant attention. Related work can be broadly divided into two approaches: eager learning and lazy learning.1 Different from eager learning, the key idea for extending naive Bayes using lazy learning is to learn an improved naive Bayes for each test instance. In recent years, several lazy extensions of naive Bayes have been proposed. For example, LBR,30 SNNB,27 and LWNB.8 All these algorithms aim to improve naive Bayes' classification performance. Indeed, they achieve significant improvement in terms of classification, measured by accuracy. In many real-world data mining applications, however, an accurate ranking is more desirable than an accurate classification. Thus a natural question is whether they also achieve significant improvement in terms of ranking, measured by AUC (the area under the ROC curve).2,11,17 Responding to this question, we conduct experiments on the 36 UCI data sets18 selected by Weka12 to investigate their ranking performance and find that they do not significantly improve the ranking performance of naive Bayes. Aiming at scaling up naive Bayes' ranking performance, we present a novel lazy method ICNB (instance cloned naive Bayes) and develop three ICNB algorithms using different instance cloning strategies. We empirically compare them with naive Bayes. The experimental results show that our algorithms achieve significant improvement in terms of AUC. Our research provides a simple but effective method for the applications where an accurate ranking is desirable.
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 | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".