MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364381349 · doi:10.1007/s10994-023-06326-9

Understanding CNN fragility when learning with imbalanced data

2023· article· en· W4364381349 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

VenueMachine Learning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkClass (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Focus (optics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Machine learningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved impressive results on imbalanced image data, but they still have difficulty generalizing to minority classes and their decisions are difficult to interpret. These problems are related because the method by which CNNs generalize to minority classes, which requires improvement, is wrapped in a black-box. To demystify CNN decisions on imbalanced data, we focus on their latent features. Although CNNs embed the pattern knowledge learned from a training set in model parameters, the effect of this knowledge is contained in feature and classification embeddings ( FE and CE ). These embeddings can be extracted from a trained model and their global, class properties (e.g., frequency, magnitude and identity) can be analyzed. We find that important information regarding the ability of a neural network to generalize to minority classes resides in the class top-K CE and FE . We show that a CNN learns a limited number of class top-K CE per category, and that their magnitudes vary based on whether the same class is balanced or imbalanced. We hypothesize that latent class diversity is as important as the number of class examples, which has important implications for re-sampling and cost-sensitive methods. These methods generally focus on rebalancing model weights, class numbers and margins; instead of diversifying class latent features. We also demonstrate that a CNN has difficulty generalizing to test data if the magnitude of its top-K latent features do not match the training set. We use three popular image datasets and two cost-sensitive algorithms commonly employed in imbalanced learning for our experiments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.153 · 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