MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610476332 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.08265

Pruning variable selection ensembles

2017· preprint· en· W2610476332 on OpenAlexafffund
Chunxia Zhang, Yilei Wu, Mu Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Ensemble learningSortingSelection (genetic algorithm)PruningStability (learning theory)Context (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningFeature selectionProcess (computing)Variable (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of variable selection, ensemble learning has gained increasing interest due to its great potential to improve selection accuracy and to reduce false discovery rate. A novel ordering-based selective ensemble learning strategy is designed in this paper to obtain smaller but more accurate ensembles. In particular, a greedy sorting strategy is proposed to rearrange the order by which the members are included into the integration process. Through stopping the fusion process early, a smaller subensemble with higher selection accuracy can be obtained. More importantly, the sequential inclusion criterion reveals the fundamental strength-diversity trade-off among ensemble members. By taking stability selection (abbreviated as StabSel) as an example, some experiments are conducted with both simulated and real-world data to examine the performance of the novel algorithm. Experimental results demonstrate that pruned StabSel generally achieves higher selection accuracy and lower false discovery rates than StabSel and several other benchmark methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.110 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207