MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150394007

From PAC-Bayes Bounds to KL Regularization

2009· article· en· W2150394007 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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