An Ensemble Generation Method Based on Instance Hardness
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 Machine Learning, ensemble methods have been receiving a great deal of attention. Techniques such as Bagging and Boosting have been successfully applied to a variety of problems. Nevertheless, such techniques are still susceptible to the effects of noise and outliers in the training data. We propose a new method for the generation of pools of classifiers based on Bagging, in which the probability of an instance being selected during the resampling process is inversely proportional to its instance hardness, which can be understood as the likelihood of an instance being misclassified, regardless of the choice of classifier. The goal of the proposed method is to remove noisy data without sacrificing the hard instances which are likely to be found on class boundaries. We evaluate the performance of the method in nineteen public data sets, and compare it to the performance of the Bagging and Random Subspace algorithms. Our experiments show that in high noise scenarios the accuracy of our method is significantly better than that of Bagging.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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