<i>k</i>CV-B: BOOTSTRAP WITH CROSS-VALIDATION FOR DEEP LEARNING MODEL DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This study investigates the inability of two popular data splitting techniques: train/test split and k-fold cross-validation that are to create training and validation data sets, and to achieve sufficient generality for supervised deep learning (DL) methods. This failure is mainly caused by their limited ability of new data creation. In response, the bootstrap is a computer based statistical resampling method that has been used efficiently for estimating the distribution of a sample estimator and to assess a model without having knowledge about the population. This paper couples cross-validation and bootstrap to have their respective advantages in view of data generation strategy and to achieve better generalization of a DL model. This paper contributes by: (i) developing an algorithm for better selection of training and validation data sets, (ii) exploring the potential of bootstrap for drawing statistical inference on the necessary performance metrics (e.g., mean square error), and (iii) introducing a method that can assess and improve the efficiency of a DL model. The proposed method is applied for semantic segmentation and is demonstrated via a DL based classification algorithm, PointNet, through aerial laser scanning point cloud data.
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 | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".