A K-NN associated fuzzy evidential reasoning classifier with adaptive neighbor 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
We present a fuzzy evidential reasoning algorithm in light of the Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and the K-nearest neighbor algorithm for pattern classification. Given an input pattern to be classified, each of its K nearest neighbors is viewed as an evidence source, in terms of a fuzzy evidence structure. The distance between the input pattern and each of its K nearest neighbors is used for mass determination while the contextual information of the nearest neighbor in the training sample space is formulated by a fuzzy set in determining a fuzzy focal element. Therefore, pooling evidence provided by neighbors is realized by a fuzzy evidential reasoning, where feature selection is further considered through ranking and adaptive combination of neighbors. A fast implementation scheme of the fuzzy evidential reasoning is also developed. Experimental results of classifying multichannel remote sensing images have shown that the proposed approach outperforms the K-nearest neighbor (K-NN) algorithm [T.M. Cover et al. (1967)], the fuzzy K-nearest neighbor (F-KNN) algorithm [J.M. Keller et al. (1985)], the evidence-theoretic K-nearest neighbor (E-KNN) algorithm [T. Denoex (1995)], and the fuzzy extended version of E-KNN (FE-KNN) [L.M. Zouhal et al. (1997)], in terms of the classification accuracy and insensitivity to the number K of nearest neighbors.
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