A comparison of fuzzy ARTMAP and Gaussian ARTMAP neural networks for incremental learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic pattern classifiers that allow for incremental learning can adapt internal class models efficiently in response to new information, without having to retrain from the start using all the cumulative training data. In this paper, the performance of two such classifiers - the fuzzy ARTMAP and Gaussian ARTMAP neural networks - are characterize and compared for supervised incremental learning in environments where class distributions are fixed. Their potential for incremental learning of new blocks of training data, after previously been trained, is assessed in terms of generalization error and resource requirements, for several synthetic pattern recognition problems. The advantages and drawbacks of these architectures are discussed for incremental learning with different data block sizes and data set structures. Overall results indicate that Gaussian ARTMAP is the more suitable for incremental learning as it usually provides an error rate that is comparable to that of batch learning for the data sets, and for a wide range of training block sizes. The better performance is a result of the representation of categories as Gaussian distributions, and of using category-specific learning rate that decreases during the training process. With all the data sets, the error rate obtained by training through incremental learning is usually significantly higher than through batch learning for fuzzy ARTMAP. Training fuzzy ARTMAP and Gaussian ARTMAP through incremental learning often requires fewer training epochs to converge, and leads to more compact networks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".