A Load-Balancing Divide-and-Conquer SVM Solver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scaling up kernel support vector machine (SVM) training has been an important topic in recent years. Despite its theoretical elegance, training kernel SVM is impractical when facing millions of data. The divide-and-conquer (DC) strategy is a natural framework of handling gigantic problems, and the divide-and-conquer solver for kernel SVM (DC-SVM) is able to train kernel SVM with millions of data with limited time cost. However, there are some drawbacks of the DC-SVM approach. First, it used an unsupervised clustering method to partition the whole problem, which is prone to construct singular subsets, and, second, it is hard to balance the computation load between sub-problems. To address these issues, this article proposed a load-balancing partition method for kernel SVM. First, it clusters sample from one class and then assigns data samples to the cluster centers by a distance measure and construct sub-problems; in this way, it is able to control the computation load and avoid singular problems. Experimental results show that the proposed method has better load-balancing performance than DC-SVM, which implies that it is suitable for distributed and embedding systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".