Classification as Clustering: A Pareto Cooperative-Competitive GP Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intuitively population based algorithms such as genetic programming provide a natural environment for supporting solutions that learn to decompose the overall task between multiple individuals, or a team. This work presents a framework for evolving teams without recourse to prespecifying the number of cooperating individuals. To do so, each individual evolves a mapping to a distribution of outcomes that, following clustering, establishes the parameterization of a (Gaussian) local membership function. This gives individuals the opportunity to represent subsets of tasks, where the overall task is that of classification under the supervised learning domain. Thus, rather than each team member representing an entire class, individuals are free to identify unique subsets of the overall classification task. The framework is supported by techniques from evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) and Pareto competitive coevolution. EMO establishes the basis for encouraging individuals to provide accurate yet nonoverlaping behaviors; whereas competitive coevolution provides the mechanism for scaling to potentially large unbalanced datasets. Benchmarking is performed against recent examples of nonlinear SVM classifiers over 12 UCI datasets with between 150 and 200,000 training instances. Solutions from the proposed coevolutionary multiobjective GP framework appear to provide a good balance between classification performance and model complexity, especially as the dataset instance count increases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".