MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079624507 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2011.2171680

Stochastic Subset Selection for Learning With Kernel Machines

2011· article· en· W2079624507 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Rhinelander, Peter Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMachine learningKernel (algebra)Support vector machineGraph kernelKernel methodTree kernelArtificial intelligenceRadial basis function kernelMultiple kernel learningString kernelSelection (genetic algorithm)Polynomial kernelQuadratic programmingAlgorithmData miningMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kernel machines have gained much popularity in applications of machine learning. Support vector machines (SVMs) are a subset of kernel machines and generalize well for classification, regression, and anomaly detection tasks. The training procedure for traditional SVMs involves solving a quadratic programming (QP) problem. The QP problem scales super linearly in computational effort with the number of training samples and is often used for the offline batch processing of data. Kernel machines operate by retaining a subset of observed data during training. The data vectors contained within this subset are referred to as support vectors (SVs). The work presented in this paper introduces a subset selection method for the use of kernel machines in online, changing environments. Our algorithm works by using a stochastic indexing technique when selecting a subset of SVs when computing the kernel expansion. The work described here is novel because it separates the selection of kernel basis functions from the training algorithm used. The subset selection algorithm presented here can be used in conjunction with any online training technique. It is important for online kernel machines to be computationally efficient due to the real-time requirements of online environments. Our algorithm is an important contribution because it scales linearly with the number of training samples and is compatible with current training techniques. Our algorithm outperforms standard techniques in terms of computational efficiency and provides increased recognition accuracy in our experiments. We provide results from experiments using both simulated and real-world data sets to verify our algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics)Same topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207