CSBF: A static ensemble fusion method based on the centrality score of complex networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ensemble of classifiers can improve classification accuracy by combining several models. The fusion method plays an important role in the ensemble performance. Usually, a criterion for weighting the decision of each ensemble member is adopted. Frequently, this can be done using some heuristic based on accuracy or confidence. Then, the used fusion rule must consider the established criterion for providing a most reliable ensemble output through a kind of competition among the ensemble members. This article presents a new ensemble fusion method, named centrality score‐based fusion, which uses the centrality concept in the context of social network analysis (SNA) as a criterion for the ensemble decision. Centrality measures have been applied in the SNA to measure the importance of each person inside of a social network, taking into account the relationship of each person with all others. Thus, the idea is to derive the classifier weight considering the overall classifier prominence inside the ensemble network, which reflects the relationships among pairs of classifiers. We hypothesized that the prominent position of a classifier based on its pairwise relationship with the other ensemble members could be its weight in the fusion process. A robust experimental protocol has confirmed that centrality measures represent a promising strategy to weight the classifiers of an ensemble, showing that the proposed fusion method performed well against 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".