Robustness, Risk, and Regularization in Support Vector Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider two new formulations for classification problems in the spirit of support vector machines based on robust optimization. Our formulations are designed to build in protection to noise and control overfitting, but without being overly conservative. Our first formulation allows the noise between different samples to be correlated. We show that the standard norm-regularized support vector machine classifier is a solution to a special case of our first formulation, thus providing an explicit link between regularization and robustness in pattern classification. Our second formulation is based on a softer version of robust optimization called comprehensive robustness. We show that this formulation is equivalent to regularization by any arbitrary convex regularizer, thus extending our first equivalence result. Moreover, we explain how the connection of comprehensive robustness to convex risk-measures can be used to design risk-measure constrained classifiers with robustness to the input distribution. Our formulations result in convex optimization problems that can be easily solved. Finally, we provide some empirical results that show the promise of comprehensive robust classifiers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".