A Closest Resemblance Classifier with Feature Interval Learning and Outranking Measures for Improved Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classifiers today face numerous challenges, including overfitting, high computational costs, low accuracy, imbalanced datasets, and lack of interpretability. Additionally, traditional methods often struggle with noisy or missing data. To address these issues, we propose novel classification methods based on feature partitioning and outranking measures. Our approach eliminates the need for prior domain knowledge by automatically learning feature intervals directly from the data. These intervals capture key patterns, enhancing adaptability and insight. To improve robustness, we incorporate outranking measures, which reduce the impact of noise and uncertainty through pairwise comparisons of alternatives across features. We evaluate our classifiers on multiple UCI repository datasets and compare them with established methods, including k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Neural Networks (NNs), Naive Bayes (NB), and Nearest Centroid (NC). The results demonstrate that our methods are robust to imbalanced datasets and irrelevant features, achieving comparable or superior performance in many cases. Furthermore, our classifiers offer enhanced interpretability while maintaining high predictive accuracy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".