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

Testing halfspaces over rotation-invariant distributions

2019· article· en· W2962748838 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel Harms

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on Discrete AlgorithmsSame topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207