Discriminative Density-ratio Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The covariate shift is a challenging problem in supervised learning that results from the discrepancy between the training and test distributions. An effective approach which recently drew a considerable attention in the research community is to reweight the training samples to minimize that discrepancy. In specific, many methods are based on developing Density-ratio (DR) estimation techniques that apply to both regression and classification problems. Although these methods work well for regression problems, their performance on classification problems is not satisfactory. This is due to a key observation that these methods focus on matching the sample marginal distributions without paying attention to preserving the separation between classes in the reweighted space. In this paper, we propose a novel method for Discriminative Density-ratio (DDR) estimation that addresses the aforementioned problem and aims at estimating the density-ratio of joint distributions in a class-wise manner. The proposed algorithm is an iterative procedure that alternates between estimating the class information for the test data and estimating new density ratio for each class. To incorporate the estimated class information of the test data, a soft matching technique is proposed. In addition, we employ an effective criterion which adopts mutual information as an indicator to stop the iterative procedure while resulting in a decision boundary that lies in a sparse region. Experiments on synthetic and benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method in terms of both accuracy and robustness.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".