Explicit Learning Curves for Transduction and Application to Clustering and Compression Algorithms

Inductive learning is based on inferring a general rule from a finite data set and using it to label new data. In transduction one attempts to solve the problem of using a labeled training set to label a set of unlabeled points, which are given to the learner prior to learning. Although transduction seems at the outset to be an easier task than induction, there have not been many provably useful algorithms for transduction. Moreover, the precise relation between induction and transduction has not yet been determined. The main theoretical developments related to transduction were presented by Vapnik more than twenty years ago. One of Vapnik's basic results is a rather tight error bound for transductive classification based on an exact computation of the hypergeometric tail. While tight, this bound is given implicitly via a computational routine. Our first contribution is a somewhat looser but explicit characterization of a slightly extended PAC-Bayesian version of Vapnik's transductive bound. This characterization is obtained using concentration inequalities for the tail of sums of random variables obtained by sampling without replacement. We then derive error bounds for compression schemes such as (transductive) support vector machines and for transduction algorithms based on clustering. The main observation used for deriving these new error bounds and algorithms is that the unlabeled test points, which in the transductive setting are known in advance, can be used in order to construct useful data dependent prior distributions over the hypothesis space

On PAC-Bayesian Bounds for Random Forests

Existing guarantees in terms of rigorous upper bounds on the generalization error for the original random forest algorithm, one of the most frequently used machine learning methods, are unsatisfying. We discuss and evaluate various PAC-Bayesian approaches to derive such bounds. The bounds do not require additional hold-out data, because the out-of-bag samples from the bagging in the training process can be exploited. A random forest predicts by taking a majority vote of an ensemble of decision trees. The first approach is to bound the error of the vote by twice the error of the corresponding Gibbs classifier (classifying with a single member of the ensemble selected at random). However, this approach does not take into account the effect of averaging out of errors of individual classifiers when taking the majority vote. This effect provides a significant boost in performance when the errors are independent or negatively correlated, but when the correlations are strong the advantage from taking the majority vote is small. The second approach based on PAC-Bayesian C-bounds takes dependencies between ensemble members into account, but it requires estimating correlations between the errors of the individual classifiers. When the correlations are high or the estimation is poor, the bounds degrade. In our experiments, we compute generalization bounds for random forests on various benchmark data sets. Because the individual decision trees already perform well, their predictions are highly correlated and the C-bounds do not lead to satisfactory results. For the same reason, the bounds based on the analysis of Gibbs classifiers are typically superior and often reasonably tight. Bounds based on a validation set coming at the cost of a smaller training set gave better performance guarantees, but worse performance in most experiments

Generalization Error in Deep Learning

Deep learning models have lately shown great performance in various fields such as computer vision, speech recognition, speech translation, and natural language processing. However, alongside their state-of-the-art performance, it is still generally unclear what is the source of their generalization ability. Thus, an important question is what makes deep neural networks able to generalize well from the training set to new data. In this article, we provide an overview of the existing theory and bounds for the characterization of the generalization error of deep neural networks, combining both classical and more recent theoretical and empirical results

Meta learning of bounds on the Bayes classifier error

Meta learning uses information from base learners (e.g. classifiers or estimators) as well as information about the learning problem to improve upon the performance of a single base learner. For example, the Bayes error rate of a given feature space, if known, can be used to aid in choosing a classifier, as well as in feature selection and model selection for the base classifiers and the meta classifier. Recent work in the field of f-divergence functional estimation has led to the development of simple and rapidly converging estimators that can be used to estimate various bounds on the Bayes error. We estimate multiple bounds on the Bayes error using an estimator that applies meta learning to slowly converging plug-in estimators to obtain the parametric convergence rate. We compare the estimated bounds empirically on simulated data and then estimate the tighter bounds on features extracted from an image patch analysis of sunspot continuum and magnetogram images.Comment: 6 pages, 3 figures, to appear in proceedings of 2015 IEEE Signal Processing and SP Education Worksho

Information Losses in Neural Classifiers from Sampling

This paper considers the subject of information losses arising from the finite datasets used in the training of neural classifiers. It proves a relationship between such losses as the product of the expected total variation of the estimated neural model with the information about the feature space contained in the hidden representation of that model. It then bounds this expected total variation as a function of the size of randomly sampled datasets in a fairly general setting, and without bringing in any additional dependence on model complexity. It ultimately obtains bounds on information losses that are less sensitive to input compression and in general much smaller than existing bounds. The paper then uses these bounds to explain some recent experimental findings of information compression in neural networks which cannot be explained by previous work. Finally, the paper shows that not only are these bounds much smaller than existing ones, but that they also correspond well with experiments.Comment: To be published in IEEE TNNL