MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915691082 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2019.2901688

Logistic Regression Confined by Cardinality-Constrained Sample and Feature Selection

2019· article· en· W2915691082 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)Simon Fraser University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCoordinate descentMachine learningFeature selectionPattern recognition (psychology)Cardinality (data modeling)OverfittingData miningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many vision-based applications rely on logistic regression for embedding classification within a probabilistic context, such as recognition in images and videos or identifying disease-specific image phenotypes from neuroimages. Logistic regression, however, often performs poorly when trained on data that is noisy, has irrelevant features, or when the samples are distributed across the classes in an imbalanced setting; a common occurrence in visual recognition tasks. To deal with those issues, researchers generally rely on adhoc regularization techniques or model a subset of these issues. We instead propose a mathematically sound logistic regression model that selects a subset of (relevant) features and (informative and balanced) set of samples during the training process. The model does so by applying cardinality constraints (via ℓ <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">0</sub> -`norm' sparsity) on the features and samples. ℓ <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">0</sub> defines sparsity in mathematical settings but in practice has mostly been approximated (e.g., via ℓ <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sub> or its variations) for computational simplicity. We prove that a local minimum to the non-convex optimization problems induced by cardinality constraints can be computed by combining block coordinate descent with penalty decomposition. On synthetic, image recognition, and neuroimaging datasets, we show that the accuracy of the method is higher than alternative methods and classifiers commonly used in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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