MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408830429 · doi:10.3390/math13071059

Optimizing Accuracy, Recall, Specificity, and Precision Using ILP

2025· article· en· W4408830429 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Marioriyad, Pouria Ramazi

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallComputer sciencePrecision and recallArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accuracy, recall, specificity, and precision are key performance measures for binary classifiers. To obtain these measures, the probabilities generated by classifiers must be converted into deterministic labels using a threshold. Exhaustive search methods can be computationally expensive, prompting the need for a more efficient solution. We propose an integer linear programming (ILP) formulation to find the threshold that maximizes any linear combination of these measures. Simulations and experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach identifies the optimal threshold orders of magnitude faster than an exhaustive search. This work establishes ILP as an efficient tool for optimizing classifier performance.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207