MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951131435 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.01742

META-DES.H: a dynamic ensemble selection technique using meta-learning and a dynamic weighting approach

2018· preprint· en· W2951131435 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de PernambucoConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaÉcole de technologie supérieure
KeywordsClassifier (UML)WeightingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningCascading classifiersEnsemble learningRandom subspace methodWeighted votingVotingPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Dynamic Ensemble Selection (DES) techniques, only the most competent classifiers are selected to classify a given query sample. Hence, the key issue in DES is how to estimate the competence of each classifier in a pool to select the most competent ones. In order to deal with this issue, we proposed a novel dynamic ensemble selection framework using meta-learning, called META-DES. The framework is divided into three steps. In the first step, the pool of classifiers is generated from the training data. In the second phase the meta-features are computed using the training data and used to train a meta-classifier that is able to predict whether or not a base classifier from the pool is competent enough to classify an input instance. In this paper, we propose improvements to the training and generalization phase of the META-DES framework. In the training phase, we evaluate four different algorithms for the training of the meta-classifier. For the generalization phase, three combination approaches are evaluated: Dynamic selection, where only the classifiers that attain a certain competence level are selected; Dynamic weighting, where the meta-classifier estimates the competence of each classifier in the pool, and the outputs of all classifiers in the pool are weighted based on their level of competence; and a hybrid approach, in which first an ensemble with the most competent classifiers is selected, after which the weights of the selected classifiers are estimated in order to be used in a weighted majority voting scheme. Experiments are carried out on 30 classification datasets. Experimental results demonstrate that the changes proposed in this paper significantly improve the recognition accuracy of the system in several datasets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.108 · 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