Properties of a GP active learning framework for streaming data with class imbalance
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
Active learning algorithms attempt to interactively develop a subset of data from which fitness evaluation is performed. Moreover, the distribution of labeled content within the data subset may adapt over time as genetic programming (GP) individuals improve. The basic goal is therefore to identify the most meaningful subset of data to improve the current model. Under a streaming data context additional challenges exist relative to the non-streaming scenario: non-stationary processes, partial observability anytime operation. This means that it is not possible to guarantee that the content of the data subset even provides exemplars for each class that could appear in the stream (i.e., different classes appear/disappear at different parts of the stream). With this in mind, an investigation is performed into the impact of adopting different policies for controlling the development of data subset content. To do so, a generic framework is defined in terms of sampling and archiving policies. The resulting evaluation under several large multi-class datasets with class imbalance indicates that adopting random sampling with a biased archiving policy is sufficient for evolving GP classifiers that match or better the current state-of-the-art, particularly when detecting minor classes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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