K-Nearest Oracles Borderline Dynamic Classifier Ensemble Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic Ensemble Selection (DES) techniques aim to select locally competent classifiers for the classification of each new test sample. Most DES techniques estimate the competence of classifiers using a given criterion over the region of competence of the test sample (its the nearest neighbors in the validation set). The K-Nearest Oracles Eliminate (KNORA-E) DES selects all classifiers that correctly classify all samples in the region of competence of the test sample, if such classifier exists, otherwise, it removes from the region of competence the sample that is furthest from the test sample, and the process repeats. When the region of competence has samples of different classes, KNORAE can reduce the region of competence in such a way that only samples of a single class remain in the region of competence, leading to the selection of locally incompetent classifiers that classify all samples in the region of competence as being from the same class. In this paper, we propose two DES techniques: KNearest Oracles Borderline (KNORA-B) and K-Nearest Oracles Borderline Imbalanced (KNORA-BI). KNORA-B is a DES technique based on KNORA-E that reduces the region of competence but maintains at least one sample from each class that is in the original region of competence. KNORA-BI is a variation of KNORA-B for imbalance datasets that reduces the region of competence but maintains at least one minority class sample if there is any in the original region of competence. Experiments are conducted comparing the proposed techniques with 19 DES techniques from the literature using 40 datasets. The results show that the proposed techniques achieved interesting results, with KNORA-BI outperforming state-of-art techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".