1 resultado para Performer operístico
em DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Filtro por publicador
- Repository Napier (1)
- Abertay Research Collections - Abertay University’s repository (2)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (5)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (1)
- Aston University Research Archive (4)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (1)
- Bioline International (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (3)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (9)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (1)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (1)
- Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya (CSUC), Spain (13)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (2)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (1)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- Doria (National Library of Finland DSpace Services) - National Library of Finland, Finland (6)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (1)
- Glasgow Theses Service (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (1)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (1)
- Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States (3)
- Lume - Repositório Digital da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (1)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1)
- Memoria Académica - FaHCE, UNLP - Argentina (12)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (2)
- Nottingham eTheses (1)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (1)
- Repositório Alice (Acesso Livre à Informação Científica da Embrapa / Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from Embrapa) (1)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (7)
- Repositório da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (UFES), Brazil (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (RIUT) (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (26)
- Royal College of Art Research Repository - Uninet Kingdom (1)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (5)
- Savoirs UdeS : plateforme de diffusion de la production intellectuelle de l’Université de Sherbrooke - Canada (1)
- Scielo Saúde Pública - SP (1)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (1)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (1)
- Universidade Complutense de Madrid (1)
- Universidade do Minho (2)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (10)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (2)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (2)
- Université de Montréal (3)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (22)
- University of Michigan (6)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (7)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (1)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (2)
Resumo:
In active learning, a machine learning algorithmis given an unlabeled set of examples U, and is allowed to request labels for a relatively small subset of U to use for training. The goal is then to judiciously choose which examples in U to have labeled in order to optimize some performance criterion, e.g. classification accuracy. We study how active learning affects AUC. We examine two existing algorithms from the literature and present our own active learning algorithms designed to maximize the AUC of the hypothesis. One of our algorithms was consistently the top performer, and Closest Sampling from the literature often came in second behind it. When good posterior probability estimates were available, our heuristics were by far the best.