Group Maximum Differentiation Competition: Model Comparison with Few Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many science and engineering fields that require computational models to predict certain physical quantities, we are often faced with the selection of the best model under the constraint that only a small sample set can be physically measured. One such example is the prediction of human perception of visual quality, where sample images live in a high dimensional space with enormous content variations. We propose a new methodology for model comparison named group maximum differentiation (gMAD) competition. Given multiple computational models, gMAD maximizes the chances of falsifying a "defender" model using the rest models as "attackers". It exploits the sample space to find sample pairs that maximally differentiate the attackers while holding the defender fixed. Based on the results of the attacking-defending game, we introduce two measures, aggressiveness and resistance, to summarize the performance of each model at attacking other models and defending attacks from other models, respectively. We demonstrate the gMAD competition using three examples-image quality, image aesthetics, and streaming video quality-of-experience. Although these examples focus on visually discriminable quantities, the gMAD methodology can be extended to many other fields, and is especially useful when the sample space is large, the physical measurement is expensive and the cost of computational prediction is low.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".