Some theoretical results of learning theory based on random sets in set‐valued probability space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce some basic knowledge of statistical learning theory (SLT) based on random set samples in set‐valued probability space for the first time and generalize the key theorem and bounds on the rate of uniform convergence of learning theory in Vapnik, to the key theorem and bounds on the rate of uniform convergence for random sets in set‐valued probability space. SLT based on random samples formed in probability space is considered, at present, as one of the fundamental theories about small samples statistical learning. It has become a novel and important field of machine learning, along with other concepts and architectures such as neural networks. However, the theory hardly handles statistical learning problems for samples that involve random set samples. Design/methodology/approach Being motivated by some applications, in this paper a SLT is developed based on random set samples. First, a certain law of large numbers for random sets is proved. Second, the definitions of the distribution function and the expectation of random sets are introduced, and the concepts of the expected risk functional and the empirical risk functional are discussed. A notion of the strict consistency of the principle of empirical risk minimization is presented. Findings The paper formulates and proves the key theorem and presents the bounds on the rate of uniform convergence of learning theory based on random sets in set‐valued probability space, which become cornerstones of the theoretical fundamentals of the SLT for random set samples. Originality/value The paper provides a studied analysis of some theoretical results of learning theory.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".