NIPS workshop on New Problems and Methods in Computational Biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of computational biology has seen dramatic growth over the past few years, both in terms of available data, scientific questions and challenges for learning and inference. These new types of scientific and clinical problems require the development of novel supervised and unsupervised learning approaches. In particular, the field is characterized by a diversity of heterogeneous data. The human genome sequence is accompanied by real-valued gene expression data, functional annotation of genes, genotyping information, a graph of interacting proteins, a set of equations describing the dynamics of a system, localization of proteins in a cell, a phylogenetic tree relating species, natural language text in the form of papers describing experiments, partial models that provide priors, and numerous other data sources. This supplementary issue consists of seven peer-reviewed papers based on the NIPS Workshop on New Problems and Methods in Computational Biology held at Whistler, British Columbia, Canada on December 8, 2006. The Neural Information Processing Systems Conference is the premier scientific meeting on neural computation, with session topics spanning artificial intelligence, learning theory, neuroscience, etc. The goal of this workshop was to present emerging problems and machine learning techniques in computational biology, with a particular emphasis on methods for computational learning from heterogeneous data. We received 37 extended abstract submissions, from which 13 were selected for oral presentation. The current supplement contains seven papers based on a subset of the 13 extended abstracts. Submitted manuscripts were rigorously reviewed by at least two referees. The quality of each paper was evaluated with respect to its contribution to biology as well as the novelty of the machine learning methods employed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.014 |
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".