MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Data Imputation with an Autoencoder and MAGIC

2023· article· en· W4388235557 on OpenAlexaff
Devin Eddington, Andres Felipe Duque Correa, Guy Wolf, Kevin R. Moon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImputation (statistics)Missing dataAutoencoderComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Mean squared errorArtificial intelligenceDeep learningData miningMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Missing data is a common problem in many applications. Imputing missing values is a challenging task, as the imputations need to be accurate and robust to avoid introducing bias in downstream analysis. In this paper, we propose an ensemble method that combines the strengths of a manifold learning-based imputation method called MAGIC and an autoencoder deep learning model. We call our method Deep MAGIC. Deep MAGIC is trained on a linear combination of the mean squared error of the original data and the mean squared error of the MAGIC-imputed data. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets show that Deep MAGIC outperforms several state-of-the-art imputation methods, demonstrating its effectiveness and robustness in handling large amounts of missing 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 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 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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207