MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182286517

From PAC-Bayes Bounds to Quadratic Programs for Majority Votes

2011· article· en· W2182286517 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

VenueInternational Conference on Machine Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMargin (machine learning)Upper and lower boundsAdaBoostBayes' theoremMathematicsQuadratic equationDivergence (linguistics)MinificationBasis (linear algebra)CombinatoricsComputer scienceAlgorithmSupport vector machineMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningBayesian probability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose to construct a weighted majority vote on a set of basis functions by minimizing a risk bound (called the C-bound) that depends on the first two moments of the margin of the Q-convex combination realized on the data. This bound minimization algorithm turns out to be a quadratic program that can be efficiently solved. A first version of the algorithm is designed for the supervised inductive setting and turns out to be very competitive with AdaBoost, MDBoost and the SVM. The second version is designed for the transductive setting. It competes well against TSVM. We also propose a new PAC-Bayes theorem that bounds the difference between the true value of the C-bound and its empirical estimate and that, unexpectedly, contains no KL-divergence.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.244 · 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