Contribution of data complexity features on dynamic classifier 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
Different dynamic classifier selection techniques have been proposed in the literature to determine among diverse classifiers available in a pool which should be used to classify a test instance. The individual competence of each classifier in the pool is usually evaluated taking into account its accuracy on the neighborhood of the test instance in a validation dataset. In this work we investigate the possible contribution of considering during the classifier evaluation the use of features related to the problem complexity. Since usually the pool generation technique does not assure diversity, the idea is to consider diversity during the selection. Basically, we select a classifier trained in subset of data showing similar complexity than that observed in neighborhood of the test instance. We expect that this similarity in terms of complexity allow us to select a more competent classifier. Experiments on 30 classification problems representing different levels of difficulty have shown that the proposed selection method is comparable to well known dynamic selection strategies. When compared with other DS approaches it was able to win on 123 over 150 experiments. This promising results indicate that further investigation must be done to increase diversity in terms of data complexity during the process of pool generation.
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 | 0.001 | 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