MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117847370 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2007.896406

Scaling Genetic Programming to Large Datasets Using Hierarchical Dynamic Subset Selection

2007· letter· en· W2117847370 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRSSSelection (genetic algorithm)HeuristicsGenetic programmingBlock (permutation group theory)BenchmarkingMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGenetic algorithmOverhead (engineering)Binary classificationData miningAlgorithmMathematicsSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The computational overhead of genetic programming (GP) may be directly addressed without recourse to hardware solutions using active learning algorithms based on the random or dynamic subset selection heuristics (RSS or DSS). This correspondence begins by presenting a family of hierarchical DSS algorithms: RSS-DSS, cascaded RSS-DSS, and the balanced block DSS algorithm, where the latter has not been previously introduced. Extensive benchmarking over four unbalanced real-world binary classification problems with 30000-500000 training exemplars demonstrates that both the cascade and balanced block algorithms are able to reduce the likelihood of degenerates while providing a significant improvement in classification accuracy relative to the original RSS-DSS algorithm. Moreover, comparison with GP trained without an active learning algorithm indicates that classification performance is not compromised, while training is completed in minutes as opposed to half a day.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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