MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150394007

From PAC-Bayes Bounds to KL Regularization

2009· article· en· W2150394007 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Germain, Alexandre Lacasse, Mario Marchand, Sara Shanian, François Laviolette

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoordinate descentRegularization (linguistics)MathematicsBoosting (machine learning)Upper and lower boundsConvex functionAlgorithmProximal gradient methods for learningBayes' theoremRegular polygonElastic net regularizationMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsKullback–Leibler divergenceComputer scienceConvex optimizationArtificial intelligenceRegressionConvex combinationStatisticsBayesian probabilityMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that convex KL-regularized objective functions are obtained from a PAC-Bayes risk bound when using convex loss functions for the stochastic Gibbs classifier that upper-bound the standard zero-one loss used for the weighted ma-jority vote. By restricting ourselves to a class of posteriors, that we call quasi uniform, we propose a simple coordinate descent learning algorithm to minimize the proposed KL-regularized cost function. We show that standard `p-regularized objective functions currently used, such as ridge regression and `p-regularized boosting, are obtained from a relaxation of the KL divergence between the quasi uniform posterior and the uniform prior. We present numerical experiments where the proposed learning algorithm generally outperforms ridge regression and Ada-Boost. 1

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207