KurtHGR: A Neural Maximal Correlation for Tabular Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of dependencies between variables is a fundamental pillar of machine learning, influencing areas as diverse as feature selection, fairness, dimensionality reduction, and multimodal learning. Among nonlinear correlation measures, the Hirschfeld-Gebelein-Rényi (HGR) maximal correlation stands out for its universality and remarkable theoretical properties. Defined as the maximum achievable correlation between nonlinear transformations of two random variables, it provides an intrinsic quantification of statistical dependence, regardless of their marginal distributions. However, despite its theoretical potential, its practical adoption still faces several challenges. In this paper, we present a new approach called KurtHGR, dedicated to the estimation of the bivariate nonlinear correlation matrix of a set of variables. We show that this solution is effective in detecting nonlinear correlations, robust to noise, and computationally efficient, thanks to a neural architecture specifically designed for this purpose. We evaluate its performance through numerical illustrations and feature selection experiments, where we demonstrate that KurtHGR empirically outperforms state-of-the-art approaches.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".