Bounds on the rate of convergence of learning processes based on random sets and set‐valued probability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Bounds on the rate of convergence of learning processes based on random samples and probability are one of the essential components of statistical learning theory (SLT). The constructive distribution‐independent bounds on generalization are the cornerstone of constructing support vector machines. Random sets and set‐valued probability are important extensions of random variables and probability, respectively. The paper aims to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the bounds on the rate of convergence of learning processes based on random sets and set‐valued probability are discussed. First, the Hoeffding inequality is enhanced based on random sets, and then making use of the key theorem the non‐constructive distribution‐dependent bounds of learning machines based on random sets in set‐valued probability space are revisited. Second, some properties of random sets and set‐valued probability are discussed. Findings In the sequel, the concepts of the annealed entropy, the growth function, and VC dimension of a set of random sets are presented. Finally, the paper establishes the VC dimension theory of SLT based on random sets and set‐valued probability, and then develops the constructive distribution‐independent bounds on the rate of uniform convergence of learning processes. It shows that such bounds are important to the analysis of the generalization abilities of learning machines. Originality/value SLT is considered at present as one of the fundamental theories about small statistical learning.
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 | 0.017 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".