A Novel Random Forest Dissimilarity Measure for Multi-View Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-view learning is a learning task in which data is described by several concurrent representations. Its main challenge is most often to exploit the complementarities between these representations to help solve a classification/regression task. This is a challenge that can be met nowadays if there is a large amount of data available for learning. However, this is not necessarily true for all real-world problems, where data are sometimes scarce (e.g. problems related to the medical environment). In these situations, an effective strategy is to use intermediate representations based on the dissimilarities between instances. This work presents new ways of constructing these dissimilarity representations, learning them from data with Random Forest classifiers. More precisely, two methods are proposed, which modify the Random Forest proximity measure, to adapt it to the context of High Dimension Low Sample Size (HDLSS) multi-view classification problems. The second method, based on an Instance Hardness measurement, is significantly more accurate than other state-of-the-art measurements including the original RF Proximity measurement and the Large Margin Nearest Neighbor (LMNN) metric learning measurement.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".