In this work we study the semi-supervised framework of confidence set classification with controlled expected size in minimax settings. We obtain semi-supervised minimax rates of convergence under the margin assumption and a H o lder condition on the regression function. Besides, we show that if no further assumptions are made, there is no supervised method that outperforms the semi-supervised estimator proposed in this work. We establish that the best achievable rate for any supervised method is n^ --1 2 , even if the margin assumption is extremely favorable. On the contrary, semi-supervised estimators can achieve faster rates of convergence provided that sufficiently many unlabeled samples are available. We additionally perform numerical evaluation of the proposed algorithms empirically confirming our theoretical findings.
Interestingly, both approaches can be encompassed into the constrained estimation framework , where one would like to construct an estimator with some prescribed properties. These properties are typically reflected by the form of the risk which in our case is the discrepancy measure, that is, the sum of error and information discrepancies. Thus, both frameworks of @cite_14 @cite_3 can be seen as an extension of the constrained estimation to the classification problems. From the modeling point of view, we believe that the two frameworks can co-exist nicely and a particular choice depends on the considered application. The major difference between the present work and those by @cite_7 and @cite_14 is the minimax analysis which we provide here and our treatment of semi-supervised techniques.
@cite_14 @cite_7 @cite_3
1538452572 2611292810 2964285681 2126022166
This note explores the connections and differences between three commonly used methods for constructing minimax lower bounds in nonparametric estimation problems: Le Cam’s, Assouad’s and Fano’s. Two connections are established between Le Cam’s and Assouad’s and between Assouad’s and Fano’s. The three methods are then compared in the context of two estimation problems for a smooth class of densities on [0,1]. The two estimation problems are for the integrated squared first derivatives and for the density function itself. In domain adaptation, maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) has been widely adopted as a discrepancy metric between the distributions of source and target domains. However, existing MMD-based domain adaptation methods generally ignore the changes of class prior distributions, i.e., class weight bias across domains. This remains an open problem but ubiquitous for domain adaptation, which can be caused by changes in sample selection criteria and application scenarios. We show that MMD cannot account for class weight bias and results in degraded domain adaptation performance. To address this issue, a weighted MMD model is proposed in this paper. Specifically, we introduce class-specific auxiliary weights into the original MMD for exploiting the class prior probability on source and target domains, whose challenge lies in the fact that the class label in target domain is unavailable. To account for it, our proposed weighted MMD model is defined by introducing an auxiliary weight for each class in the source domain, and a classification EM algorithm is suggested by alternating between assigning the pseudo-labels, estimating auxiliary weights and updating model parameters. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our weighted MMD over conventional MMD for domain adaptation. In domain adaptation, maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) has been widely adopted as a discrepancy metric between the distributions of source and target domains. However, existing MMD-based domain adaptation methods generally ignore the changes of class prior distributions, i.e., class weight bias across domains. This remains an open problem but ubiquitous for domain adaptation, which can be caused by changes in sample selection criteria and application scenarios. We show that MMD cannot account for class weight bias and results in degraded domain adaptation performance. To address this issue, a weighted MMD model is proposed in this paper. Specifically, we introduce class-specific auxiliary weights into the original MMD for exploiting the class prior probability on source and target domains, whose challenge lies in the fact that the class label in target domain is unavailable. To account for it, our proposed weighted MMD model is defined by introducing an auxiliary weight for each class in the source domain, and a classification EM algorithm is suggested by alternating between assigning the pseudo-labels, estimating auxiliary weights and updating model parameters. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our weighted MMD over conventional MMD for domain adaptation. This paper studies two-class (or binary) classification of elements X in R k that allows for a reject option. Based on n independent copies of the pair of random variables (X,Y ) with X 2 R k and Y 2 0,1 , we consider classifiers f(X) that render three possible outputs: 0, 1 and R. The option R expresses doubt and is to be used for few observations that are hard to classify in an automatic way. Chow (1970) derived the optimal rule minimizing the risk P f(X) 6 Y, f(X) 6 R + dP f(X) = R . This risk function subsumes that the cost of making a wrong decision equals 1 and that of utilizing the reject option is d. We show that the classification problem hinges on the behavior of the regression function (x) = E(Y |X = x) near d and 1 d. (Here d 2 [0,1 2] as the other cases turn out to be trivial.) Classification rules can be categorized into plug-in estimators and empirical risk minimizers. Both types are considered here and we prove that the rates of convergence of the risk of any estimate depends on P | (X) d| + P | (X) (1 d)| and on the quality of the estimate for or an appropriate measure of the size of the class of classifiers, in case of plug-in rules and empirical risk minimizers, respectively. We extend the mathematical framework even further by dierentiating between costs associated with the two possible errors: predicting f(X) = 0 whilst Y = 1 and predicting f(X) = 1 whilst Y = 0. Such situations are common in, for instance, medical studies where misclassifying a sick patient as healthy is worse than the opposite.