Cited by 145Machine Learning and Data ClassificationAdvanced Optimization Algorithms ResearchRisk and Portfolio Optimization

Support Vector Machines with the Ramp Loss and the Hard Margin Loss

Brooks, J. Paul·2011·Operations Research

Abstract

In the interest of deriving classifiers that are robust to outlier observations, we present integer programming formulations of Vapnik's support vector machine (SVM) with the ramp loss and hard margin loss. The ramp loss allows a maximum error of 2 for each training observation, while the hard margin loss calculates error by counting the number of training observations that are in the margin or misclassified outside of the margin. SVM with these loss functions is shown to be a consistent estimator when used with certain kernel functions. In computational studies with simulated and real-world data, SVM with the robust loss functions ignores outlier observations effectively, providing an advantage over SVM with the traditional hinge loss when using the linear kernel. Despite the fact that training SVM with the robust loss functions requires the solution of a quadratic mixed-integer program (QMIP) and is NP-hard, while traditional SVM requires only the solution of a continuous quadratic program (QP), we are able to find good solutions and prove optimality for instances with up to 500 observations. Solution methods are presented for the new formulations that improve computational performance over industry-standard integer programming solvers alone.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/opre.1100.0854

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Outliers can also be problematic for sampling and subgroup analysis.

    “Outliers can also be problematic [46,222].”

    From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brooks, J. P.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Brooks, J. Paul
Venue
Operations Research
Published
2011-04
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
467-479
ISSN
  • 0030-364X (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5463
OpenAlex
W2032708784
Cited by
145
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Operations Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Numerical Analysis › Advanced Optimization Algorithms Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Risk and Portfolio Optimization
Keywords
support vector machine, ramp loss, robust classification, outlier robustness, integer programming formulation, hinge loss, kernel methods, estimator consistency, NP-hardness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review