MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207108977 · doi:10.3390/app11219787

A Many-Objective Simultaneous Feature Selection and Discretization for LCS-Based Gesture Recognition

2021· article· en· W3207108977 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin J.-D. Otis, Julien Vandewynckel

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDiscretizationFeature selectionDimensionality reductionComputer scienceDynamic time warpingPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discretization and feature selection are two relevant techniques for dimensionality reduction. The first one aims to transform a set of continuous attributes into discrete ones, and the second removes the irrelevant and redundant features; these two methods often lead to be more specific and concise data. In this paper, we propose to simultaneously deal with optimal feature subset selection, discretization, and classifier parameter tuning. As an illustration, the proposed problem formulation has been addressed using a constrained many-objective optimization algorithm based on dominance and decomposition (C-MOEA/DD) and a limited-memory implementation of the warping longest common subsequence algorithm (WarpingLCSS). In addition, the discretization sub-problem has been addressed using a variable-length representation, along with a variable-length crossover, to overcome the need of specifying the number of elements defining the discretization scheme in advance. We conduct experiments on a real-world benchmark dataset; compare two discretization criteria as discretization objective, namely Ameva and ur-CAIM; and analyze recognition performance and reduction capabilities. Our results show that our approach outperforms previous reported results by up to 11% and achieves an average feature reduction rate of 80%.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicHand Gesture Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207