Exact L 2 -Norm Plane Separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of separating two sets of points in an n-dimensional real space with a (hyper)plane that minimizes the sum of Lp-norm distances to the plane of points lying on the wrong side of it. Despite recent progress, practical techniques for the exact solution of cases other than the L1 and L∞-norm were unavailable. We propose and implement a new approach, based on non-convex quadratic programming, for the exact solution of the L2-norm case. We solve in reasonable computing times artificial problems of up to 20000 points (in 6 dimensions) and 13 dimensions (with 2000 points). We also observe that, for difficult real-life instances from the UCI Repository, computation times are substantially reduced by incorporating heuristic results in the exact solution process. Finally, we compare the classification performance of the planes obtained for the L1, L2 and L∞ formulations. It appears that, despite the fact that L2 formulation is computationally more expensive, it does not give significantly better results than the L1 and L∞ formulations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".