Improving Neural-Network Classifiers Using Nearest Neighbor Partitioning
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
This paper presents a nearest neighbor partitioning method designed to improve the performance of a neural-network classifier. For neural-network classifiers, usually the number, positions, and labels of centroids are fixed in partition space before training. However, that approach limits the search for potential neural networks during optimization; the quality of a neural network classifier is based on how clear the decision boundaries are between classes. Although attempts have been made to generate floating centroids automatically, these methods still tend to generate sphere-like partitions and cannot produce flexible decision boundaries. We propose the use of nearest neighbor classification in conjunction with a neural-network classifier. Instead of being bound by sphere-like boundaries (such as the case with centroid-based methods), the flexibility of nearest neighbors increases the chance of finding potential neural networks that have arbitrarily shaped boundaries in partition space. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method exhibits superior performance on accuracy and average f-measure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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