MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061538022 · doi:10.1109/icdm.2014.75

Classification by CUT: Clearance under Threshold

2014· article· en· W2061538022 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan McBride, Ke Wang, Wenyuan Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)Simon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClearanceComputer sciencePartition (number theory)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningClearingData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying bad objects hidden amidst many good objects is important for public safety and decision-making. These problems are complicated in that the cost of leaving a bad object unidentified may not be specified easily, making it difficult to apply existing cost-sensitive classification that depends on knowing a cost matrix or cost distribution. A compelling case for this "illusive cost" issue is presented in our project of identifying contaminated transformers with an industrial partner. To address this problem, we present an alternative formulation of cost-sensitive classification, Clearance Under Threshold (CUT) Classification. Given a training set, CUT classification is to partition the attribute space such that a partition is cleared if the probability of a future object in this partition being bad is less than a user-specified threshold. The goal is to clear many low-risk objects so that users can more effectively target high-risk objects. We present a solution to this problem and evaluate it on a case study for clearing contaminated transformers and on public benchmarks from UC Irvine's Machine Learning Repository. According to the experiments, our algorithms performed far better than the baselines derived from previous classification approaches.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207