MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110889378 · doi:10.1109/smc42975.2020.9283208

Binary Hybrid Differential Evolution Algorithm for Multi-label Feature Selection

2020· article· en· W3110889378 on OpenAlexaff
Nelson Vithayathil Varghese, Amritpal Singh, Ashwin Suresh, Shahryar Rahnamayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)MetaheuristicDifferential evolutionMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Field (mathematics)Selection (genetic algorithm)AlgorithmData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driven by the recent technological advancements within the machine learning field, multi-label classification has been introduced as one of the challenging tasks to assign more than one label to each instance in a dataset. Feature selection is one of the predominant feature engineering methodologies which being extensively used as a vital step in predictive model construction to enhance the multi-label classification performance. Many metaheuristic algorithms have been tailored to choose the optimal subset of features in datasets but as a challenging problem, such algorithms suffer from a slow process during fine-tuning. Objective of this paper is to propose a hybrid mechanism by which an obtained feature subset from a Binary Differential Evolution (BDE) algorithm will be further enhanced to minimize the classification error using a local search methodology. Key motivation behind the proposed model is to address the weakness in exploitation of metaheuristic feature selection algorithms with the help of classical feature selection method such as Sequential Backward Selection (SBS) as a local search strategy. The classical feature selection method eliminates more redundant and irrelevant features of obtained subset using the BDE to decrease the classification error. The empirical results obtained on eight various multi-label datasets show that the proposed hybrid approach, which is a fusion of both evolutionary and classical feature selection methods, can minimize the classification error on the obtained feature subset using the BDE.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207