MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741752675 · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/481

Multi-Instance Learning with Key Instance Shift

2017· article· en· W2741752675 on OpenAlexaff
Yalin Zhang, Zhi‐Hua Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer scienceEmbeddingArtificial intelligenceClass (philosophy)Machine learningTest (biology)Computer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-instance learning (MIL) deals with the tasks where each example is represented by a bag of instances. A bag is positive if it contains at least one positive instance, and negative otherwise. The positive instances are also called key instances. Only bag labels are observed, whereas specific instance labels are not available in MIL. Previous studies typically assume that training and test data follow the same distribution, which may be violated in many real-world tasks. In this paper, we address the problem that the distribution of key instances varies between training and test phase. We refer to this problem as MIL with key instance shift and solve it by proposing an embedding based method MIKI. Specifically, to transform the bags into informative vectors, we propose a weighted multi-class model to select the instances with high positiveness as instance prototypes. Then we learn the importance weights for transformed bag vectors and incorporate original instance weights into them to narrow the gap between training/test distributions. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of our approach when key instance shift occurs.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207