MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adaptive Learning with Logistic Regression for soil classification with LIBS

2024· article· en· W4401719158 on OpenAlexafffund
Yichao Huang, Abdul Bais, S. Mohajan, Amina Hussein

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsLogistic regressionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningRegressionLogistic model treeStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) presents a promising avenue for real-time soil characterization, particularly with the integration of machine learning (ML) techniques to enhance its detection capabilities. However, the variability in soil matrix properties can lead to discrepancies in LIBS emission lines, challenging traditional ML algorithms that assume consistent distributions between training and test spectra. To address this challenge, we propose a novel domain adaptation approach leveraging logistic regression with class and pseudo-label weighting. We categorize classes based on transfer difficulties into hard, normal, and easy categories. Hard classes, with low predictive proportions due to misclassification, are assigned higher weights. In contrast, lower weights are assigned to easy classes to mitigate transfer imbalances. Furthermore, we introduce weighted pseudo-labels from hard classes misclassified into similar classes, obtained through few-shot learning based on similarity, to be incorporated into co-training alongside source-labeled samples. It refines the logistic regression model and boosts the test performance of hard classes. To highlight the effectiveness of the proposed method, it is tested with the Euro-Mediterranean Symposium on LIBS (EMSLIBS) contest dataset and compared against literature methods, including data calibration, adversarial training, and self-learning. Notably, our method outperforms these methods, achieving an impressive accuracy of 91.3%.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207