MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973650202 · doi:10.1002/cjs.10105

Robust penalized logistic regression with truncated loss functions

2011· article· en· W1973650202 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Seo Young Park, Yufeng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Statistical Methods and Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOutlierLogistic regressionComputer scienceRobust regressionRegressionStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Logistic model treeMathematicsArtificial intelligenceFunction (biology)Robustness (evolution)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Econometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The penalized logistic regression (PLR) is a powerful statistical tool for classification. It has been commonly used in many practical problems. Despite its success, since the loss function of the PLR is unbounded, resulting classifiers can be sensitive to outliers. To build more robust classifiers, we propose the robust PLR (RPLR) which uses truncated logistic loss functions, and suggest three schemes to estimate conditional class probabilities. Connections of the RPLR with some other existing work on robust logistic regression have been discussed. Our theoretical results indicate that the RPLR is Fisher consistent and more robust to outliers. Moreover, we develop estimated generalized approximate cross validation (EGACV) for the tuning parameter selection. Through numerical examples, we demonstrate that truncating the loss function indeed yields better performance in terms of classification accuracy and class probability estimation.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.068 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsFrench-language works237,207