Multiview Feature Selection for Single-View Classification
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
In many real-world scenarios, data from multiple modalities (sources) are collected during a development phase. Such data are referred to as multiview data. While additional information from multiple views often improves the performance, collecting data from such additional views during the testing phase may not be desired due to the high costs associated with measuring such views or, unavailability of such additional views. Therefore, in many applications, despite having a multiview training data set, it is desired to do performance testing using data from only one view. In this paper, we present a multiview feature selection method that leverages the knowledge of all views and use it to guide the feature selection process in an individual view. We realize this via a multiview feature weighting scheme such that the local margins of samples in each view are maximized and similarities of samples to some reference points in different views are preserved. Also, the proposed formulation can be used for cross-view matching when the view-specific feature weights are pre-computed on an auxiliary data set. Promising results have been achieved on nine real-world data sets as well as three biometric recognition applications. On average, the proposed feature selection method has improved the classification error rate by 31 percent of the error rate of the state-of-the-art.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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