A Closest Resemblance Classifier with Feature Interval Learning and Outranking Measures for Improved Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classifiers face a myriad of challenges in today’s data-driven world, ranging from overfitting and high computational costs to low accuracy, imbalanced training datasets, and the notorious black box effect. Furthermore, many traditional classifiers struggle with the robust handling of noisy and missing feature values. In response to these hurdles, we present classification methods that leverage the power of feature partitioning learning and outranking measures. Our classification algorithms offer an innovative approach, eliminating the need for prior domain knowledge by automatically discerning feature intervals directly from the data. These intervals capture essential patterns and characteristics within the dataset, empowering our classifiers with newfound adaptability and insight. In addition, we employ outranking measures to mitigate the influence of noise and uncertainty in the data. Through pairwise comparisons of alternatives on each feature, we enhance the robustness and reliability of our classification outcomes. The developed classifiers are empirically evaluated on several data sets from UCI repository and are compared with well-known classifiers including k Nearest Neighbors (K-NN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Neural Network (NN), Naive Bayesian (NB) and Nearest Centroid (NC). The experiments result demonstrate that the classifiers based on feature interval learning and outranking approaches are robust to imbalanced data and to irrelevant features and achieve comparably and even better performances than the well-known classifiers in some cases. Moreover, our proposed classifiers produce more explainable models whilst preserving high predictive performance levels.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".