MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108841339 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2020.3032707

Semisupervised Learning via Axiomatic Fuzzy Set Theory and SVM

2020· article· en· W3108841339 on OpenAlexaff
Wenjuan Jia, Xiaodong Liu, Yuangang Wang, Witold Pedrycz, Juxiang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsInterpretabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSupport vector machineMachine learningFuzzy logicExploitClassifier (UML)Schema (genetic algorithms)Set (abstract data type)Frame (networking)Natural language processingData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present a semantic semisupervised learning (Semantic SSL) approach targeted at unifying two machine-learning paradigms in a mutually beneficial way, where the classical support vector machine (SVM) learns to reveal primitive logic facts from data, while axiomatic fuzzy set (AFS) theory is utilized to exploit semantic knowledge and correct the wrongly perceived facts for improving the machine-learning model. This novel semisupervised method can easily produce interpretable semantic descriptions to outline different categories by forming a fuzzy set with semantic explanations realized on the basis of the AFS theory. Besides, it is known that disagreement-based semisupervised learning (SSL) can be viewed as an excellent schema so that a co-training approach with SVM and the AFS theory can be utilized to improve the resulting learning performance. Furthermore, an evaluation index is used to prune descriptions to deliver promising performance. Compared with other semisupervised approaches, the proposed approach can build a structure to reflect data-distributed information with unlabeled data and labeled data, so that the hidden information embedded in both labeled and unlabeled data can be sufficiently utilized and can potentially be applied to achieve good descriptions of each category. Experimental results demonstrate that this approach can offer a concise, comprehensible, and precise SSL frame, which strikes a balance between the interpretability and the accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207