COMPOUND DIVERSITY FUNCTIONS FOR ENSEMBLE SELECTION
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An effective way to improve a classification method's performance is to create ensembles of classifiers. Two elements are believed to be important in constructing an ensemble: (a) the performance of each individual classifier; and (b) diversity among the classifiers. Nevertheless, most works based on diversity suggest that there exists only weak correlation between classifier performance and ensemble accuracy. We propose compound diversity functions which combine the diversities with the performance of each individual classifier, and show that there is a strong correlation between the proposed functions and ensemble accuracy. Calculation of the correlations with different ensemble creation methods, different problems and different classification algorithms on 0.624 million ensembles suggests that most compound diversity functions are better than traditional diversity measures. The population-based Genetic Algorithm was used to search for the best ensembles on a handwritten numerals recognition problem and to evaluate 42.24 million ensembles. The statistical results indicate that compound diversity functions perform better than traditional diversity measures, and are helpful in selecting the best ensembles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it