MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023748613 · doi:10.1101/2020.05.04.077263

Fenchel duality of Cox partial likelihood and its application in survival kernel learning

2020· preprint· en· W3023748613 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Wilson, Kaiqiao Li, Qiang Sun, Pei Fen Kuan, Xuefeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKernel (algebra)Duality (order theory)Proportional hazards modelMathematicsMathematical optimizationFunction (biology)Convex optimizationRegularization (linguistics)Likelihood functionApplied mathematicsRegular polygonComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceStatisticsCombinatoricsEstimation theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Cox proportional hazard model is the most widely used method in modeling time-to-event data in the health sciences. A common form of the loss function in machine learning for survival data is also mainly based on Cox partial likelihood function, due to its simplicity. However, the optimization problem becomes intractable when more complicated regularization is employed with the Cox loss function. In this paper, we show that a convex conjugate function of Cox loss function based on Fenchel Duality exists, and this provides an alternative framework to optimization based on the primal form. Furthermore, the dual form suggests an efficient algorithm for solving the kernel learning problem with censored survival outcomes. We illustrate the application of the derived duality form of Cox partial likelihood loss in the multiple kernel learning setting

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207