MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962748838 · doi:10.5555/3310435.3310479

Testing halfspaces over rotation-invariant distributions

2019· article· en· W2962748838 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

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessLogarithmInvariant (physics)MathematicsRotation (mathematics)Function (biology)Distribution (mathematics)Probability distributionSign (mathematics)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsSign functionAlgorithmMathematical analysisGeometryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an algorithm for testing halfspaces over arbitrary, unknown rotation-invariant distributions. Using [MATH HERE] random examples of an unknown function f the algorithm determines with high probability whether f is of the form f(x) = sign(∑iwixi − t) or is ϵ-far from all such functions. This sample size is significantly smaller than the well-known requirement of Θ(n) samples for learning halfspaces, and known lower bounds imply that our sample size is optimal (in its dependence on n) up to logarithmic factors. The algorithm is distribution-free in the sense that it requires no knowledge of the distribution aside from the promise of rotation invariance. To prove the correctness of this algorithm we present a theorem relating the distance between a function and a halfspace to the distance between their centers of mass, that applies to arbitrary distributions.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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