MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170708028 · doi:10.5555/944919.944952

The set covering machine

2003· article· en· W2170708028 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Marchand, John Shawe‐Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGeneralizationSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningGeneralization errorSupport vector machineFunction (biology)Upper and lower boundsData setOnline machine learningAlgorithmActive learning (machine learning)Artificial neural networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend the classical algorithms of Valiant and Haussler for learning compact conjunctions and disjunctions of Boolean attributes to allow features that are constructed from the data and to allow a trade-off between accuracy and complexity. The result is a general-purpose learning machine, suitable for practical learning tasks, that we call the set covering machine. We present a version of the set covering machine that uses data-dependent balls for its set of features and compare its performance with the support vector machine. By extending a technique pioneered by Littlestone and Warmuth, we bound its generalization error as a function of the amount of data compression it achieves during training. In experiments with real-world learning tasks, the bound is shown to be extremely tight and to provide an effective guide for model selection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations112
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueePrints Soton (University of Southampton)Same topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207