The effects of combining classifiers with the same training statistics using Bayesian decision rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple classifier systems (MCS) are attracting increasing interest in the field of pattern recognition and machine learning. Recently, MCS are also being introduced in the remote sensing field where the importance of classifier diversity for image classification problems has not been examined. In this article, Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) IV panchromatic and multispectral satellite images are classified into six land cover classes using five base classifiers: contextual classifier, k-nearest neighbour classifier, Mahalanobis classifier, maximum likelihood classifier and minimum distance classifier. The five base classifiers are trained with the same feature sets throughout the experiments and a posteriori probability, derived from the confusion matrix of these base classifiers, is applied to five Bayesian decision rules (product rule, sum rule, maximum rule, minimum rule and median rule) for constructing different combinations of classifier ensembles. The performance of these classifier ensembles is evaluated for overall accuracy and kappa statistics. Three statistical tests, the McNemar's test, the Cochran's Q test and the Looney's F-test, are used to examine the diversity of the classification results of the base classifiers compared to the results of the classifier ensembles. The experimental comparison reveals that (a) significant diversity amongst the base classifiers cannot enhance the performance of classifier ensembles; (b) accuracy improvement of classifier ensembles can only be found by using base classifiers with similar and low accuracy; (c) increasing the number of base classifiers cannot improve the overall accuracy of the MCS and (d) none of the Bayesian decision rules outperforms the others.
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 | 0.031 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".