Analyzing different prototype selection techniques for dynamic classifier and ensemble 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
In dynamic selection (DS) techniques, only the most competent classifiers, for the classification of a specific test sample are selected to predict the sample's class labels. The more important step in DES techniques is estimating the competence of the base classifiers for the classification of each specific test sample. The classifiers' competence is usually estimated using the neighborhood of the test sample defined on the validation samples, called the region of competence. Thus, the performance of DS techniques is sensitive to the distribution of the validation set. In this paper, we evaluate six prototype selection techniques that work by editing the validation data in order to remove noise and redundant instances. Experiments conducted using several state-of-the-art DS techniques over 30 classification problems demonstrate that by using prototype selection techniques we can improve the classification accuracy of DS techniques and also significantly reduce the computational cost involved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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