CSNL: A cost-sensitive non-linear decision tree algorithm

This article presents a new decision tree learning algorithm called CSNL that induces Cost-Sensitive Non-Linear decision trees. The algorithm is based on the hypothesis that nonlinear decision nodes provide a better basis than axis-parallel decision nodes and utilizes discriminant analysis to construct nonlinear decision trees that take account of costs of misclassification. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated by applying it to seventeen datasets and the results are compared with those obtained by two well known cost-sensitive algorithms, ICET and MetaCost, which generate multiple trees to obtain some of the best results to date. The results show that CSNL performs at least as well, if not better than these algorithms, in more than twelve of the datasets and is considerably faster. The use of bagging with CSNL further enhances its performance showing the significant benefits of using nonlinear decision nodes. The performance of the algorithm is evaluated by applying it to seventeen data sets and the results are compared with those obtained by two well known cost-sensitive algorithms, ICET and MetaCost, which generate multiple trees to obtain some of the best results to date. The results show that CSNL performs at least as well, if not better than these algorithms, in more than twelve of the data sets and is considerably faster. The use of bagging with CSNL further enhances its performance showing the significant benefits of using non-linear decision nodes

Energy transfer from organic surface adsorbate-polyvinyl pyrrolidone molecules to luminescent centers

Abstract Multi-colour emitting doped ZnS nanocrystals surface capped with pyridine (P-ZnS) or polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP-ZnS) have been synthesized by wet chemical methods. The photoluminescence studies show that the dopant related emission from P-ZnS nanocrystals are caused by the energy transfer from band-to-band excitation of the host lattice. However, in the case of PVP capped ZnS, considerable enhancement in the emission intensity was observed and the corresponding excitation spectra appeared dramatically broadened due to the presence of multiple excitation bands with peak maxima at 235, 253, 260, 275, and 310 nm. The bands from 235 to 275 nm are assigned to the electronic transitions in the chemisorbed PVP molecules whereas the excitation maximum around 310 nm corresponds to the band-to-band transition within the nanocrystalline ZnS host. The presence of PVP related energy bands in the excitation spectrum indicates the process of energy transfer from the surface adsorbed PVP molecules to dopant centers in ZnS nanocrystals. This study brings out a heterogeneous sensitizer-activator relation between organic surface adsorbate and doped semiconducting nanocrystals.

Intergroup Competition as a Double-edged Sword: How Sex Composition Regulates the Effects of Competition on Group Creativity

Building on social role theory, we extend a contingency perspective on intergroup competition proposing that having groups compete against one another is stimulating to the creativity of groups composed largely or exclusively of men but detrimental to the creativity of groups composed largely or exclusively of women. We tested this idea in two separate studies: a laboratory experiment (Study 1) and a field study (Study 2). Study 1 showed that competition had the expected positive effects on the creativity of groups composed mostly or exclusively of men and produced the predicted negative effects on the creativity of groups composed of women, even though the latter effects emerged at the high end of the competition spectrum and for sex-homogeneous groups only. Results of Study 1 also revealed that within-group collaboration mediated the joint effects of competition and sex composition on group creativity. Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 in a field setting involving research and development teams. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice. </jats:p

A survey of cost-sensitive decision tree induction algorithms

The past decade has seen a significant interest on the problem of inducing decision trees that take account of costs of misclassification and costs of acquiring the features used for decision making. This survey identifies over 50 algorithms including approaches that are direct adaptations of accuracy based methods, use genetic algorithms, use anytime methods and utilize boosting and bagging. The survey brings together these different studies and novel approaches to cost-sensitive decision tree learning, provides a useful taxonomy, a historical timeline of how the field has developed and should provide a useful reference point for future research in this field

Fast Protection-Domain Crossing in the CHERI Capability-System Architecture

Capability Hardware Enhanced RISC Instructions (CHERI) supplement the conventional memory management unit (MMU) with instruction-set architecture (ISA) extensions that implement a capability system model in the address space. CHERI can also underpin a hardware-software object-capability model for scalable application compartmentalization that can mitigate broader classes of attack. This article describes ISA additions to CHERI that support fast protection-domain switching, not only in terms of low cycle count, but also efficient memory sharing with mutual distrust. The authors propose ISA support for sealed capabilities, hardware-assisted checking during protection-domain switching, a lightweight capability flow-control model, and fast register clearing, while retaining the flexibility of a software-defined protection-domain transition model. They validate this approach through a full-system experimental design, including ISA extensions, a field-programmable gate array prototype (implemented in Bluespec SystemVerilog), and a software stack including an OS (based on FreeBSD), compiler (based on LLVM), software compartmentalization model, and open-source applications.This work is part of the CTSRD and MRC2 projects sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), under contracts FA8750-10-C-0237 and FA8750-11-C-0249. We also acknowledge the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) REMS Programme Grant [EP/K008528/1], the EPSRC Impact Acceleration Account [EP/K503757/1], EPSRC/ARM iCASE studentship [13220009], Microsoft studentship [MRS2011-031], the Isaac Newton Trust, the UK Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), Thales E-Security, and Google, Inc.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version of the article can be found at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7723791

The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers

We examine factors affecting the auditor’s willingness to report their own or their peers’ self-discovered errors in working papers subsequent to detailed working paper review. Prior research has shown that errors in working papers are detected in the review process; however, such detection rates only rarely exceed 50% of the seeded errors. Hence, measures that encourage auditors to be alert to their own (or their peers’) potential errors any time they revisit the audit working papers may be valuable in detecting such residual errors and potentially correcting them before damage occurs to the audit firm or its client. We hypothesize that three factors affect the auditor’s willingness to report post detailed review discovered errors: the local office error-management climate (open versus blame), the type of error (mechanical versus conceptual) and who committed the error (the individual who committed the error (self) or a peer). Local office error-management climate is said to be open and supportive where errors and mistakes are accepted as part of everyday life as long as they are learned from and not repeated. In alternative, a blame error-management climate focuses on a “get it right the first time” culture where mistakes are not tolerated and blame gets attached to those admitting to or found committing such errors. We find that error-management climate has a significant overall effect on auditor willingness to report errors, as does who committed the error originally. We find both predicted and unpredicted significant interactions among the three factors that qualify these observed significant main effects. We discuss implications for audit practice and further research

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

SPARC 2022 book of abstracts

Welcome to the Book of Abstracts for the 2022 SPARC conference. Our conference is called “Moving Forwards” reflecting our re-emergence from the pandemic and our desire to reconnect our PGR community, in celebration of their research. PGRs have continued with their research endeavours despite many challenges, and their ongoing successes are underpinned by the support and guidance of dedicated supervisors and the Doctoral School Team. To recognise supervision excellence we will be awarding our annual Supervisor of the Year prizes, based on the wonderful nominations received from their PGR students.Once again, we have received a tremendous contribution from our postgraduate research community; with over 60 presenters, 12 Three-Minute Thesis finalists, and 20 poster presentations, the conference showcases our extraordinarily vibrant, inclusive, and resilient PGR community at Salford. This year there will be prizes to be won for ‘best in conference’ presentations, in addition to the winners from each parallel session. Audience members too could be in for a treat, with judges handing out spot prizes for the best questions asked, so don’t miss the opportunity to put your hand up. These abstracts provide a taster of the diverse and impactful research in progress and provide delegates with a reference point for networking and initiating critical debate. Take advantage of the hybrid format: in online sessions by posting a comment or by messaging an author to say “Hello”, or by initiating break time discussions about the amazing research you’ve seen if you are with us in person. Who knows what might result from your conversation? With such wide-ranging topics being showcased, we encourage you to take up this great opportunity to engage with researchers working in different subject areas from your own. As recent events have shown, researchers need to collaborate to meet global challenges. Interdisciplinary and international working is increasingly recognised and rewarded by all major research funders. We do hope, therefore, that you will take this opportunity to initiate interdisciplinary conversations with other researchers. A question or comment from a different perspective can shed new light on a project and could lead to exciting collaborations, and that is what SPARC is all about. SPARC is part of a programme of personal and professional development opportunities offered to all postgraduate researchers at Salford. More information about this programme is available on our website: Doctoral School | University of Salford. Registered Salford students can access full details on the Doctoral School hub: Doctoral School Hub - Home (sharepoint.com) You can follow us on Twitter @SalfordPGRs and please use the #SPARC2022 to share your conference experience.We particularly welcome taught students from our undergraduate and master’s programmes as audience members. We hope you enjoy the presentations on offer and that they inspire you to pursue your own research career. If you would like more information about studying for a PhD here at the University of Salford, your lecturers can advise, or you can contact the relevant PGR Support Officer; their details can be found at Doctoral School | University of Salford. We wish you a rich and rewarding conference experience