Safe Sample Screening for Robust Support Vector Machine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robust support vector machine (RSVM) has been shown to perform remarkably well to improve the generalization performance of support vector machine under the noisy environment. Unfortunately, in order to handle the non-convexity induced by ramp loss in RSVM, existing RSVM solvers often adopt the DC programming framework which is computationally inefficient for running multiple outer loops. This hinders the application of RSVM to large-scale problems. Safe sample screening that allows for the exclusion of training samples prior to or early in the training process is an effective method to greatly reduce computational time. However, existing safe sample screening algorithms are limited to convex optimization problems while RSVM is a non-convex problem. To address this challenge, in this paper, we propose two safe sample screening rules for RSVM based on the framework of concave-convex procedure (CCCP). Specifically, we provide screening rule for the inner solver of CCCP and another rule for propagating screened samples between two successive solvers of CCCP. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work of safe sample screening to a non-convex optimization problem. More importantly, we provide the security guarantee to our sample screening rules to RSVM. Experimental results on a variety of benchmark datasets verify that our safe sample screening rules can significantly reduce the computational time.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".