Interpretable Deep Convolutional Fuzzy Classifier
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While deep learning has proven to be a powerful new tool for modeling and predicting a wide variety of complex phenomena, those models remain incomprehensible black boxes. This is a critical impediment to the widespread deployment of deep learning technology, as decades of research have found that users simply will not trust (i.e., make decisions based on) a model whose solutions cannot be explained. Fuzzy systems, on the other hand, are by design much more easily understood. In this article, we propose to create more comprehensible deep networks by hybridizing them with fuzzy logic. Our proposed architecture first employs a convolutional neural network as an automated feature extractor and then performs a fuzzy clustering in the derived feature space. After hardening the clusters, we employ Rocchio's algorithm to classify the data points. Experiments on three datasets show that the automated feature extraction substantially improves the accuracy of the fuzzy classifier, and while the substitution of a fuzzy classifier slightly decreases the network's performance, we are able to introduce an effective interpretation mechanism.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it