A simpler unified analysis of budget perceptrons
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kernel Perceptron is an appealing online learning algorithm that has a drawback: whenever it makes an error it must increase its support set, which slows training and testing if the number of errors is large. The Forgetron and the Randomized Budget Perceptron algorithms overcome this problem by restricting the number of support vectors the Perceptron is allowed to have. These algorithms have regret bounds whose proofs are dissimilar. In this paper we propose a unified analysis of both of these algorithms by observing that the way in which they remove support vectors can be seen as types of L2-regularization. By casting these algorithms as instances of online convex optimization problems and applying a variant of Zinkevich’s theorem for noisy and incorrect gradient, we can bound the regret of these algorithms more easily than before. Our bounds are similar to the existing ones, but the proofs are less technical. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it