MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092086356 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2010.03962

Test-Cost Sensitive Methods for Identifying Nearby Points

2020· preprint· en· W3092086356 on OpenAlexaff
Seung Gyu Hyun, Christopher Leung

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligencePoint (geometry)Machine learningData miningTree (set theory)Data setTest setReinforcement learningTest dataDecision treeMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-world applications that involve missing values are often constrained by the cost to obtain data. Test-cost sensitive, or costly feature, methods additionally consider the cost of acquiring features. Such methods have been extensively studied in the problem of classification. In this paper, we study a related problem of test-cost sensitive methods to identify nearby points from a large set, given a new point with some unknown feature values. We present two models, one based on a tree and another based on Deep Reinforcement Learning. In our simulations, we show that the models outperform random agents on a set of five real-world data sets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.100 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicData Stream Mining TechniquesFrench-language works237,207