MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distribution Based Feature Mapping for Classifying Count Data

2019· article· en· W3008035954 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Hafizur Rahman, Nizar Bouguila

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Kernel (algebra)Support vector machineFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceDirichlet distributionMaximizationMultinomial distributionKernel methodFeature vectorLatent Dirichlet allocationMachine learningData miningMathematicsTopic modelStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a statistically flexible feature mapping technique for count data which are very common in data analysis and pattern recognition applications. In particular, we are interested in supervised learning to improve the existing non-linear classification techniques using Support Vector Machine (SVM). Perfect representation of the data through a kernel function is strongly dependent on the structure of the data. Thus, choosing an appropriate kernel function or feature mapping technique is necessary to get higher accuracy and in this paper, we address this problem by proposing a new feature mapping function derived from Dirichlet Multinomial and Generalized Dirichlet Multinomial distributions for count data. In order to determine the parameters of the distributions, two approaches namely Expectation Maximization (EM) and Minorization-Maximization (MM) are employed. We evaluate our model by experimenting on two different classification tasks concerning natural scene recognition from images and human action recognition from videos. The results show that, incorporating proposed feature mapping technique with different kernels comparatively gives better results than the base kernels in different classification tasks.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207