Multiple Classifier Strategies for Dynamic Physiological and Biomechanical Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access technologies often deal with the classification of several physiological and biomechanical signals. In most previous studies involving access technologies, a single classifier has been trained. Despite reported success of these single classifiers, classification accuracies are often below clinically viable levels. One approach to improve upon the performance of these classifiers is to utilize the state of- the-art multiple classifier systems (MCS).\nBecause MCS invoke more than one classifier, more information can be exploited from the\nsignals, potentially leading to higher classification performance than that achievable with single classifiers. Moreover, by decreasing the feature space dimensionality of each classifier, the speed of the system can be increased.\nMCSs may combine classifiers on three levels: abstract, rank, or measurement level.\nAmong them, abstract-level MCSs have been the most widely applied in the literature given the flexibility of the abstract level output, i.e., class labels may be derived from any type of classifier and outputs from multiple classifiers, each designed within a different context, can be easily combined.\nIn this thesis, we develop two new abstract-level MCSs based on "reputation" values of\nindividual classifiers: the static reputation-based algorithm (SRB) and the dynamic reputation-based algorithm (DRB). In SRB, each individual classifier is applied to a “validation set”, which is disjoint from training and test sets, to estimate its reputation value. Then, each individual classifier is assigned a weight proportional to its reputation value. Finally, the total decision of the classification system is computed using Bayes rule. We have applied this method to the problem of dysphagia detection in adults with neurogenic swallowing difficulties.\nThe aim was to discriminate between safe and unsafe swallows. The weighted classification\naccuracy exceeded 85% and, because of its high sensitivity, the SRB approach was\ndeemed suitable for screening purposes. In the next step of this dissertation, I analyzed the SRB algorithm mathematically and examined its asymptotic behavior. Specifically, I contrasted the SRB performance against that of majority voting, the benchmark abstract-level MCS, in the presence of different types of noise.\nIn the second phase of this thesis, I exploited the idea of the Dirichlet reputation system to develop a new MCS method, the dynamic reputation-based algorithm, which is suitable for the classification of non-stationary signals. In this method, the reputation of each classifier is updated dynamically whenever a new sample is classified. At any point in time, a classifier’s reputation reflects the classifier’s performance on both the validation and the test sets. Therefore, the effect of random high-performance of weak classifiers is appropriately moderated and likewise, the effect of a poorly performing individual classifier is mitigated as its reputation value, and hence overall influence on the final decision is diminished. We applied DRB to the challenging problem of discerning physiological responses from nonverbal\nyouth with severe disabilities. The promising experimental results encourage further development of reputation-based multi-classifier systems in the domain of access technology research.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".