Comparison of Stacking-based Classifier Ensembles using Euclidean and Riemannian Geometries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers three different classifier stacking algorithms: simple stacking, cascades of classifier ensembles and nonlinear version of classifier stacking based on classifier interactions. Classifier interactions can be expressed using classifier prediction pairwise matrix (CPPM). As a meta-learner for the last algorithm Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and two other classifier stacking algorithms (simple classifier stacking and cascades of classifier ensembles) have been applied. This allows applying classical stacking and cascade-based recursive stacking in the Euclidean and the Riemannian geometries. The cascades of random forests (RFs) and extra trees (ETs) are considered as a forest-based alternative to deep neural networks [1]. Our goal is to compare accuracies of the cascades of RFs and CNN-based stacking or deep multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) for different classifications problems. We use gesture phase dataset from UCI repository [2] to compare and analyze cascades of RFs and extra trees (ETs) in both geometries and CNN-based version of classifier stacking. This data set was selected because generally motion is considered as a nonlinear process (patterns do no lie in Euclidean vector space) in computer vision applications. Thus we can assess how good are forest-based deep learning and the Riemannian manifolds (R-manifolds) when applied to nonlinear processes. Some more datasets from UCI repository were used to compare the aforementioned algorithms to some other well-known classifiers and their stacking-based versions in both geometries. Experimental results show that classifier stacking algorithms in Riemannian geometry (R-geometry) are less dependent on some properties of individual classifiers (e.g. depth of decision trees in RFs or ETs) in comparison to Euclidean geometry. More independent individual classifiers allow to obtain R-manifolds with better properties for classification. Generally, accuracy of classification using classifier stacking in R-geometry is higher than in Euclidean one.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".