MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Different Deep Learning Architectures to Learn Generalised Classifier Stacking on Riemannian and Grassmann Manifolds

2022· article· en· W4312763065 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 26th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClassifier (UML)Euclidean geometryArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkPairwise comparisonPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsDeep learningLyingStackingRiemannian geometryArtificial neural networkComputer sciencePure mathematicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers different deep learning architectures to learn patterns that are objects lying on the Riemannian and Grassmann manifolds. Among them, we considered cascades of classifier ensembles (CCEs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and deep neural forests (DNFs). All aforementioned architectures have linearized and nonlinearized versions. Patterns that are objects of Riemannian manifolds are classifier prediction pairwise matrices (CPPMs) while objects of the Grassmann manifolds are obtained using decision profiles (DPs). We also compared our architectures with CCEs that operate in the Euclidean geometry. As seen from the experimental results deep learning architectures based on CNNs provided the best results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.223 · 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