MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108165921 · doi:10.1109/icdar.2007.4378744

K-Nearest Oracle for Dynamic Ensemble Selection

2007· article· en· W2108165921 on OpenAlexafffund
Albert H.R. Ko, Robert Sabourin, Alceu de Souza Britto

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOracleComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningSelection (genetic algorithm)Majority rulePattern recognition (psychology)Random subspace methodk-nearest neighbors algorithmVotingData miningEnsemble learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For handwritten pattern recognition, multiple classifier system has been shown to be useful in improving recognition rates. One of the most important issues to optimize a multiple classifier system is to select a group of adequate classifiers, known as ensemble of classifiers (EoC), from a pool of classifiers. Static selection schemes select an EoC for all test patterns, and dynamic selection schemes select different classifiers for different test patterns. Nevertheless, it has been shown that traditional dynamic selection does not give better performance than static selection. We propose four new dynamic selection schemes which explore the property of the oracle concept. The result suggests that the proposed schemes are apparently better than the static selection using the majority voting rule for combining classifiers.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Document Analysis and RecognitionSame topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207