Implicitly Constrained Semi-Supervised Linear Discriminant Analysis

Semi-supervised learning is an important and active topic of research in pattern recognition. For classification using linear discriminant analysis specifically, several semi-supervised variants have been proposed. Using any one of these methods is not guaranteed to outperform the supervised classifier which does not take the additional unlabeled data into account. In this work we compare traditional Expectation Maximization type approaches for semi-supervised linear discriminant analysis with approaches based on intrinsic constraints and propose a new principled approach for semi-supervised linear discriminant analysis, using so-called implicit constraints. We explore the relationships between these methods and consider the question if and in what sense we can expect improvement in performance over the supervised procedure. The constraint based approaches are more robust to misspecification of the model, and may outperform alternatives that make more assumptions on the data, in terms of the log-likelihood of unseen objects.Comment: 6 pages, 3 figures and 3 tables. International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) 2014, Stockholm, Swede

Projected Estimators for Robust Semi-supervised Classification

For semi-supervised techniques to be applied safely in practice we at least want methods to outperform their supervised counterparts. We study this question for classification using the well-known quadratic surrogate loss function. Using a projection of the supervised estimate onto a set of constraints imposed by the unlabeled data, we find we can safely improve over the supervised solution in terms of this quadratic loss. Unlike other approaches to semi-supervised learning, the procedure does not rely on assumptions that are not intrinsic to the classifier at hand. It is theoretically demonstrated that, measured on the labeled and unlabeled training data, this semi-supervised procedure never gives a lower quadratic loss than the supervised alternative. To our knowledge this is the first approach that offers such strong, albeit conservative, guarantees for improvement over the supervised solution. The characteristics of our approach are explicated using benchmark datasets to further understand the similarities and differences between the quadratic loss criterion used in the theoretical results and the classification accuracy often considered in practice.Comment: 13 pages, 2 figures, 1 tabl

Robust importance-weighted cross-validation under sample selection bias

Cross-validation under sample selection bias can, in principle, be done by importance-weighting the empirical risk. However, the importance-weighted risk estimator produces suboptimal hyperparameter estimates in problem settings where large weights arise with high probability. We study its sampling variance as a function of the training data distribution and introduce a control variate to increase its robustness to problematically large weights

Robust importance-weighted cross-validation under sample selection bias

Cross-validation under sample selection bias can, in principle, be done by importance-weighting the empirical risk. However, the importance-weighted risk estimator produces suboptimal hyperparameter estimates in problem settings where large weights arise with high probability. We study its sampling variance as a function of the training data distribution and introduce a control variate to increase its robustness to problematically large weights

A Brief Prehistory of Double Descent

In their thought-provoking paper [1], Belkin et al. illustrate and discuss the shape of risk curves in the context of modern high-complexity learners. Given a fixed training sample size $n$, such curves show the risk of a learner as a function of some (approximate) measure of its complexity $N$. With $N$ the number of features, these curves are also referred to as feature curves. A salient observation in [1] is that these curves can display, what they call, double descent: with increasing $N$, the risk initially decreases, attains a minimum, and then increases until $N$ equals $n$, where the training data is fitted perfectly. Increasing $N$ even further, the risk decreases a second and final time, creating a peak at $N=n$. This twofold descent may come as a surprise, but as opposed to what [1] reports, it has not been overlooked historically. Our letter draws attention to some original, earlier findings, of interest to contemporary machine learning

Feature-level domain adaptation

Domain adaptation is the supervised learning setting in which the training and test data are sampled from different distributions: training data is sampled from a source domain, whilst test data is sampled from a target domain. This paper proposes and studies an approach, called feature-level domain adaptation (FLDA), that models the dependence between the two domains by means of a feature-level transfer model that is trained to describe the transfer from source to target domain. Subsequently, we train a domain-adapted classifier by minimizing the expected loss under the resulting transfer model. For linear classifiers and a large family of loss functions and transfer models, this expected loss can be computed or approximated analytically, and minimized efficiently. Our empirical evaluation of FLDA focuses on problems comprising binary and count data in which the transfer can be naturally modeled via a dropout distribution, which allows the classifier to adapt to differences in the marginal probability of features in the source and the target domain. Our experiments on several real-world problems show that FLDA performs on par with state-of-the-art domain-adaptation techniques.Comment: 32 pages, 13 figures, 9 table