MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920772632 · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2019.2903092

Incremental Deep Computation Model for Wireless Big Data Feature Learning

2019· article· en· W2920772632 on OpenAlexaff
Qingchen Zhang, Laurence T. Yang, Zhikui Chen, Peng Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Big Data · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBig dataArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningWireless networkComputationWirelessFeature (linguistics)Data modelingAlgorithmData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big data feature learning is a crucial issue for the service management for Internet of Things. However, big data collected from Internet of Things is of dynamic nature at a high speed, which poses an important challenge on wireless big data learning models, especially the deep computation model. In this paper, an incremental deep computation model is proposed for wireless big data feature learning in Internet of Things. First, two incremental tensor auto-encoders (ITAE) are developed by devising two incremental learning algorithms, namely parameter-based incremental learning algorithm (PI-TAE) and structure-based incremental learning algorithm (SI-TAE), when new wireless samples are available. PI-TAE only updates the network parameters while SI-TAE simultaneously adjusts the structure and updates the parameters to adapt to the new arriving wireless big data. Furthermore, an incremental deep computation model is constructed by stacking several ITAEs. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed model by comparing with the conventional deep computation model and other two representative incremental learning algorithms, i.e., OANN and PIE. Results demonstrate that the presented model can modify the network in an incremental manner for new arriving data learning efficiently with preserving the prior knowledge for the previous data learning, proving its potential for dynamic wireless big data learning in Internet of Things.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.204 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Big DataSame topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207