Minimizing features while maintaining performance in data classification problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High dimensional classification problems have gained increasing attention in machine learning, and feature selection has become essential in executing machine learning algorithms. In general, most feature selection methods compare the scores of several feature subsets and select the one that gives the maximum score. There may be other selections of a lower number of features with a lower score, yet the difference is negligible. This article proposes and applies an extended version of such feature selection methods, which selects a smaller feature subset with similar performance to the original subset under a pre-defined threshold. It further validates the suggested extended version of the Principal Component Loading Feature Selection (PCLFS-ext) results by simulating data for several practical scenarios with different numbers of features and different imbalance rates on several classification methods. Our simulated results show that the proposed method outperforms the original PCLFS and existing Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) by giving reasonable feature reduction on various data sets, which is important in some applications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it