MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1828852835 · doi:10.1109/sfcs.1994.365705

On learning discretized geometric concepts

2002· article· en· W1828852835 on OpenAlexaff
Nader H. Bshouty, Zhixiang Chen, Steven Homer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationOracleBounded functionCounterexampleConstant (computer programming)Time complexityPolynomialEquivalence (formal languages)Computer scienceMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a polynomial time online learning algorithm that learns any discretized geometric concept generated from any number of halfspaces with any number of known (to the learner) slopes in a constant dimensional space. In particular, our algorithm learns (from equivalence queries only) unions of discretized axis-parallel rectangles in a constant dimensional space in polynomial time. The algorithm also runs in polynomial time in l if the teacher lies on l counterexamples. We then show a PAC-learning algorithm for the above discretized geometric concept when the example oracle lies on the labels of the examples with a fixed probability p/spl les/ 1/2 -1/r that runs in polynomial time also with r. We use these methods, as well as a bounded version of the finite injury priority method, to construct algorithms for learning several classes of rectangles. In particular we design efficient algorithms for learning several classes of unions of discretized axis-parallel rectangles in either arbitrary dimensional spaces or constant dimensional spaces.>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207