Fast greedy $$\mathcal {C}$$-bound minimization with guarantees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound is a tight bound on the true risk of a majority vote classifier that relies on the individual quality and pairwise disagreement of the voters and provides PAC-Bayesian generalization guarantees. Based on this bound, MinCq is a classification algorithm that returns a dense distribution on a finite set of voters by minimizing it. Introduced later and inspired by boosting, CqBoost uses a column generation approach to build a sparse $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound optimal distribution on a possibly infinite set of voters. However, both approaches have a high computational learning time because they minimize the $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound by solving a quadratic program. Yet, one advantage of CqBoost is its experimental ability to provide sparse solutions. In this work, we address the problem of accelerating the $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound minimization process while keeping the sparsity of the solution and without losing accuracy. We present CB-Boost, a computationally efficient classification algorithm relying on a greedy–boosting-based– $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound optimization. An in-depth analysis proves the optimality of the greedy minimization process and quantifies the decrease of the $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound operated by the algorithm. Generalization guarantees are then drawn based on already existing PAC-Bayesian theorems. In addition, we experimentally evaluate the relevance of CB-Boost in terms of the three main properties we expect about it: accuracy, sparsity, and computational efficiency compared to MinCq, CqBoost, Adaboost and other ensemble methods. As observed in these experiments, CB-Boost not only achieves results comparable to the state of the art, but also provides $$\mathcal {C}$$ C -bound sub-optimal weights with very few computational demand while keeping the sparsity property of CqBoost.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".