MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171798319

Support Vector Machine Soft Margin Classifiers: Error Analysis

2004· article· en· W2171798319 on OpenAlexaff
Di‐Rong Chen, Qiang Wu, Yiming Ying, Ding‐Xuan Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSparse and Compressive Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproducing kernel Hilbert spaceMathematicsSupport vector machineHilbert spaceRegularization (linguistics)Applied mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceGaussianBounding overwatchPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to provide a PAC error analysis for the q-norm soft margin classifier, a support vector machine classification algorithm. It consists of two parts: regularization error and sample error. While many techniques are available for treating the sample error, much less is known for the regularization error and the corresponding approximation error for reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces. We are mainly concerned about the regularization error. It is estimated for general distributions by a K-functional in weighted L q spaces. For weakly separable distributions (i.e., the margin may be zero) satisfactory convergence rates are provided by means of separating functions. A projection operator is introduced, which leads to better sample error estimates especially for small complexity kernels. The misclassification error is bounded by the V-risk associated with a general class of loss functions V. The difficulty of bounding the offset is overcome. Polynomial kernels and Gaussian kernels are used to demonstrate the main results. The choice of the regularization parameter plays an important role in our analysis.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations222
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSparse and Compressive Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207