Combining Classifiers for Foreign Pattern Rejection
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
Abstract In this paper, we look closely at the issue of contaminated data sets, where apart from legitimate (proper) patterns we encounter erroneous patterns. In a typical scenario, the classification of a contaminated data set is always negatively influenced by garbage patterns (referred to as foreign patterns). Ideally, we would like to remove them from the data set entirely. The paper is devoted to comparison and analysis of three different models capable to perform classification of proper patterns with rejection of foreign patterns. It should be stressed that the studied models are constructed using proper patterns only, and no knowledge about the characteristics of foreign patterns is needed. The methods are illustrated with a case study of handwritten digits recognition, but the proposed approach itself is formulated in a general manner. Therefore, it can be applied to different problems. We have distinguished three structures: global, local, and embedded, all capable to eliminate foreign patterns while performing classification of proper patterns at the same time. A comparison of the proposed models shows that the embedded structure provides the best results but at the cost of a relatively high model complexity. The local architecture provides satisfying results and at the same time is relatively simple.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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