MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016484971 · doi:10.1109/icif.2007.4408144

An empirical study on diversity measures and margin theory for ensembles of classifiers

2007· article· en· W2016484971 on OpenAlex
Marcelo N. Kapp, Robert Sabourin, Patrick Maupin

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMargin (machine learning)Diversity (politics)Machine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEmpirical researchVotingMajority ruleSelection (genetic algorithm)MathematicsStatisticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this paper is to investigate the relationship between two theories widely applied to explain the success of classifiers fusion: diversity measures and margin theory. In order to achieve this, we realized an empirical study which evaluates some classical measures related to these two theories with respect to ensembles accuracy. In particular, this study revealed valuable insights on how these two theories can influence each other, and how the application of margin based measures can be useful for the evaluation and selection of ensembles of classifiers with majority voting.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207