Robust Support Vector Machines for Classification with Nonconvex and Smooth Losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This letter addresses the robustness problem when learning a large margin classifier in the presence of label noise. In our study, we achieve this purpose by proposing robustified large margin support vector machines. The robustness of the proposed robust support vector classifiers (RSVC), which is interpreted from a weighted viewpoint in this work, is due to the use of nonconvex classification losses. Besides the robustness, we also show that the proposed RSCV is simultaneously smooth, which again benefits from using smooth classification losses. The idea of proposing RSVC comes from M-estimation in statistics since the proposed robust and smooth classification losses can be taken as one-sided cost functions in robust statistics. Its Fisher consistency property and generalization ability are also investigated. Besides the robustness and smoothness, another nice property of RSVC lies in the fact that its solution can be obtained by solving weighted squared hinge loss-based support vector machine problems iteratively. We further show that in each iteration, it is a quadratic programming problem in its dual space and can be solved by using state-of-the-art methods. We thus propose an iteratively reweighted type algorithm and provide a constructive proof of its convergence to a stationary point. Effectiveness of the proposed classifiers is verified on both artificial and real data sets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".