MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387350749 · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2023.3321768

Deep Fuzzy Envelope Sample Generation Mechanism for Imbalanced Ensemble Classification

2023· article· en· W4387350749 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Cluster analysisClassifier (UML)Computer scienceFuzzy logicSample (material)Consistency (knowledge bases)Data miningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensemble methods are widely used to tackle class imbalance problem. However, for existing imbalanced ensemble (IE) methods, the samples in each subset are resampled from the same dataset, and are directly input to the classifier for training, so the quality (diversity and separability) of the subsets is unsatisfactory usually. To solve the problem, a deep fuzzy envelope sample generation mechanism is proposed. First, the fuzzy C-means clustering based deep sample envelope prenetwork (DSEN) is designed to mine correlation information among samples, thereby increasing the quality of the subsets. Second, the local manifold structure metric and global structure distribution metric are designed to construct local-global structure consistency mechanism (LGSCM) to enhance distribution consistency of interlayer samples of DSEN. Third, the DSEN and LGSCM are combined to form the final deep sample envelope network–DSENLG to refresh the existing subsets. Finally, base classifiers are applied on the new subsets generated by the DSENLG and then fused, thereby realizing a new IE algorithm. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm is significantly better than existing representative IE algorithms and it achieves the highest improvement of 10.64%, 19.5%, 18.67% and 22.33% on four criteria over the state-of-the-art methods. The originality of the article is threefold: proposing the concept of “deep fuzzy samples” or “envelope samples”, which comprehensively considers the correlation information among original samples; proposing the LGSCM to resolve the distribution inconsistency of interlayer samples; and forming an fuzzy envelope sample based IE algorithm.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.286
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