Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been much interest in the machine learning and algorithmic game theory communities on understanding and using submodular functions. Despite this substantial interest, little is known about their learnability from data. Motivated by applications, such as pricing goods in economics, this paper considers PAC-style learning of submodular functions in a distributional setting. A problem instance consists of a distribution on {0,1}n and a real-valued function on {0,1}n that is non-negative, monotone, and submodular. We are given poly(n) samples from this distribution, along with the values of the function at those sample points. The task is to approximate the value of the function to within a multiplicative factor at subsequent sample points drawn from the same distribution, with sufficiently high probability. We develop the first theoretical analysis of this problem, proving a number of important and nearly tight results. For instance, if the underlying distribution is a product distribution then we give a learning algorithm that achieves a constant-factor approximation (under some assumptions). However, for general distributions we provide a surprising Omega(n1/3) lower bound based on a new interesting class of matroids and we also show a O(n1/2) upper bound.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".