Co-Learning Non-Negative Correlated and Uncorrelated Features for Multi-View Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-view data can represent objects from different perspectives and thus provide complementary information for data analysis. A topic of great importance in multi-view learning is to locate a low-dimensional latent subspace, where common semantic features are shared by multiple data sets. However, most existing methods ignore uncorrelated items (i.e., view-specific features) and may cause semantic bias during the process of common feature learning. In this article, we propose a non-negative correlated and uncorrelated feature co-learning (CoUFC) method to address this concern. More specifically, view-specific (uncorrelated) features are identified for each view when learning the common (correlated) feature across views in the latent semantic subspace. By eliminating the effects of uncorrelated information, useful inter-view feature correlations can be captured. We design a new objective function in CoUFC and derive an optimization approach to solve the objective with the analysis on its convergence. Experiments on real-world sensor, image, and text data sets demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art multiview learning methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".