Datasets:
File size: 99,170 Bytes
76d4cf5 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 | [
{
"type": "text",
"text": "FUNDAMENTAL LIMITS OF TRANSFER LEARNING IN BINARY CLASSIFICATIONS ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
98,
823,
146
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Anonymous authors Paper under double-blind review ",
"bbox": [
183,
170,
398,
198
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "ABSTRACT ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
454,
234,
544,
251
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "A critical performance barrier in modern machine learning is scarcity of labeled data required for training state of the art massive models, especially in quickly emerging problems with lack of extensive data sets or scenarios where data collection and labeling is expensive/time consuming. Transfer learning is gaining traction as a promising technique to alleviate this barrier by utilizing the data of a related but different source task to compensate for the lack of data in a target task where there are few labeled training data. While there has been many recent algorithmic advances in this domain, a fundamental understanding of when and how much one can transfer knowledge from a related domain to reduce the amount of labeled training data is far from understood. We provide a precise answer to this question for binary classification problems by deriving a novel lower bound on the generalization error that can be achieved by any transfer learning algorithm (regardless of its computational complexity) as a function of the amount of source and target samples. Our lower bound depends on a natural notion of distance that can be easily computed on real world data sets. Other key features of our lower bound are that it applies to any arbitrary source/target data distributions and requires minimal assumptions that enables it application to a broad range of problems. We also consider a more general setting where there are more than one source domains for knowledge transfer to the target task and develop new bounds on generalization error in this setting. We also corroborate our theoretical findings on real image classification and action recognition data sets. These experiments demonstrate that our natural notion of distance is indicative of the difficulty of knowledge transfer between different pairs of source/target tasks, allowing us to investigate the effect of different sources on the target generalization error. Furthermore, to evaluate the sharpness of our bounds we compare our developed lower bounds with upper-bounds achieved by transfer learning base-lines that utilize weighted empirical risk minimization on the combination of source(s) and target data sets. ",
"bbox": [
233,
266,
764,
652
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "1 INTRODUCTION ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
676,
336,
693
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Modern machine learning models such as deep neural networks have enjoyed wide success in many domains Krizhevsky et al. (2012). The success of such deep models critically relies on an enormous amount of data required for training these massive models. For instance, GPT3 which is the state of the art model for natural language process has 175 billion parameters and requires a data set of size 45 terabytes for training. However, in new or emerging application domains it is often extremely difficult or costly to gather such large labeled training data. ",
"bbox": [
174,
708,
825,
791
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "A promising approach to this problem has been via transfer learning which aims at leveraging abundant available labeled data from a related source task to reduce the amount of labeled data required for the target task Pan & Yang (2009); Weiss et al. (2016). From a practical perspective transfer learning has been rather successful empirically. In particular, state of the art transfer learning approaches based on pretrained models and fine tuning has led to significant improvements on various benchmark datasets. Despite this empirical success however there is a huge gap between theory and practice in transfer learning and the fundamental limits and benefits of transfer learning are not well understood. Key challenging questions include: What is an appropriate notion of similarity between different tasks and how can it be quantitatively defined and computed on real data? What is the best achievable accuracy of any transfer learning algorithm with only a limited number of source and target samples? How does this accuracy depend on the number of samples and the similarity between the source and target tasks? ",
"bbox": [
174,
799,
825,
924
],
"page_idx": 0
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "",
"bbox": [
174,
103,
823,
146
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "While the answer to these challenging questions are still not fully understood, they have indeed attracted a lot of interesting theoretical work in this area Galanti et al. (2016). We will discuss this literature in thorough detail in Section 2. In this paper, we take a step towards answering the aforementioned key questions enabling a better understanding of the fundamental limits of transfer learning. We focus on binary classifications where the goal is to learn a classifier from a hypothesis class with a finite VC-dimension. This covers most contemporary classification models including the training deep neural networks for binary classification. In this setting, we first define a natural notion of similarity between source and target tasks via the performance of the best source hypothesis on the target task. Then equipped with this notion of similarity, we derive a statistical minimax lower bound on the target generalization error in terms of the number of labeled data from source and target tasks as well as the VC dimension of the hypothesis class and the similarity between source and target tasks. Furthermore, we extend this result to the case where there are multiple sources with different similarity to the target. Our results demonstrate that sources with high similarity to the target are more effective at reducing the target generalization error. Towards bridging the theory-practice gap in transfer learning we also demonstrate the utility of our theoretical result in concrete applications. Indeed, a key feature of our result is that our lower bounds can be easily and efficiently computed on real data sets and apply to a broad class of practical settings. ",
"bbox": [
174,
154,
825,
388
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In summary our key contributions are as follows: ",
"bbox": [
173,
395,
493,
410
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "• We develop a novel statistical minimax lower bound on the generalization error that can be achieved by any transfer learning algorithm as a function of the amount of source and target samples and a natural notion of similarity between source and target tasks. \n• A key features of our lower bound (including our notion of similarity) is that it can be easily computed on real world data sets. Furthermore, our lower bound holds for any source/target distribution and applies with minimal assumptions to a wide variety of contemporary learning models including deep neural networks. \n• We investigate the sharpness of our lower bounds and demonstrate their utility via experiments on action recognition and image classification. ",
"bbox": [
217,
422,
825,
559
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "2 PRIOR WORKS ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
174,
579,
328,
595
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "A closely related literature to transfer learning is domain adaptation where there is no or very few labeled target data and the goal is to adapt the hypothesis learned on the source domain to achieve a low target generalization error Chen et al. (2019); Blitzer et al. (2007); Azizzadenesheli et al. (2018); Long et al. (2016); Shen et al. (2018). Most of this literature assume that source and target share a common labeling rule but there is a shift in the marginal distributions. There are many upper bounds for the target generalization error in this setting this setting. For instance, Ben-David et al. (2007; 2010) gives an upper bound for the target generalization error in terms of source generalization error and a divergence measure between the domains that can be estimated by finitely many unlabeled data from the source and target. In another work Mansour et al. (2009) introduces a new discrepancy distance and generalizes the results of Ben-David et al. (2007) for a wide family of loss functions using Rademacher complexity. Similar to this setting, but for multiple source domain adaption scheme, Mansour et al. (2021) proposes a family of algorithms based on the idea of model selection under the assumption that target distribution is close to some convex combination of sources. A more recent work Lei et al. (2021) studies linear regression under shift distribution including covariate shift (i.e. conditional distributions of source and target are the same) as well as model shift (i.e. only distributions of the features of the source and target are the same) and develops algorithms achieving near optimal minimax risk in this setting. ",
"bbox": [
174,
611,
825,
848
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In addition to upper bounds, there are also a few results which provide lower bounds for target generalization error. David et al. (2010) provides impossibility results under the assumption of covariate shift and small discrepancy of unlabeled distributions. Mousavi Kalan et al. (2020) studies transfer learning with one hidden layer neural networks for regression problems. This result defines a notion of similarity between the source and target tasks based on a distance between the ground truth parameters of the source and target networks. Using this distance this paper develops a statistical minimax lower bound for the target generalization error in terms of the number of source and target samples as well as the defined similarity of the source and target under the distribution shift with the assumption that the features are generated by Gaussian distributions. Compared to Mousavi Kalan et al. (2020) our result has quite a few unique advantages: (1) We do not assume that the source and target data are generated according to a planted (teacher) network and our results now even hold in the agnostic setting. (2) Mousavi Kalan et al. (2020) applies to regression problems but this result covers classification (3) Mousavi Kalan et al. (2020) only considered one-hidden layer neural networks for predicting the labels of extracted features. In this result we can handle arbitrary deep neural networks. (4) Our notion of similarity between the source and target distributions can be much more easily estimated by using only a few target data without the need for estimating the ground truth target parameters which requires lots of labeled target data. ",
"bbox": [
174,
854,
823,
924
],
"page_idx": 1
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "",
"bbox": [
173,
103,
825,
270
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "More closely related to this work Hanneke & Kpotufe (2019) derives a minimax lower bound for target generalization error in binary classification under the assumption of a relaxed version of covariate shift and small transfer exponent parameter which is defined to measure the discrepancy of the source and target distributions. Our work differs from this previous work as except for assuming the VC dimension of the model is finite we do not make any further assumptions. This makes our results applicable in a much broader set of classifications or decision making problems. Furthermore, our lower bound can be evaluated on real data sets and serve as a guideline to practitioners helping them decide when utilizing additional knowledge from a source domain is useful for a given target task. ",
"bbox": [
174,
276,
825,
402
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Most of the literature in transfer learning try to provide sufficiency and necessity results by deriving upper and lower bounds for target generalization error in a relatively general setting. However, these papers often require a variety of assumptions to find the optimal classifier in a target domain in closed form. For instance, Karbalayghareh et al. (2019; 2018) defines a joint prior distribution of source and target domains using a Wishart distribution which relate the source and target tasks and then makes it possible to study and understand the transferability between domains. Furthermore, in this setting, the authors develop a closed form optimal Bayesian transfer learning and demonstrate its advantage over a classifier obtained by only target data. Related to this setting but for regressions, Karbalayghareh et al. (2018) obtains the optimal Bayesian transfer learning under setting of joint Gaussian feature/label distribution. In contrast with the above in our paper we do not make any assumptions about the distribution of the data. ",
"bbox": [
173,
410,
825,
563
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "3 PROBLEM FORMULATION ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
582,
416,
597
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "We consider a transfer learning problem where there are some labeled training data from a source task and a target task with the goal of inferring a hypothesis function with small generalization error in the target task. More specifically, we assume have $n _ { S }$ and $n _ { T }$ source and target labeled data where each training data consists of an input/feature as well as an output/label. We denote the source and training data by $( \\pmb { x } _ { S } , y _ { S } ) \\sim \\mathbb { P }$ and $\\bar { \\mathbf { \\Omega } } ( \\mathbf { x } _ { T } , y _ { T } ) \\sim \\mathbb { Q }$ , respectively, where $y _ { S } , y _ { T } \\in \\{ 0 , 1 \\}$ and $\\mathbb { P } , \\mathbb { Q }$ are the joint feature-label distributions of source and target data. Additionally, we assume that source and target features/inputs share a same domain, ${ \\pmb x } _ { S } , { \\pmb x } _ { T } \\in { \\chi }$ , and $\\mathcal { H } \\subset 2 ^ { \\chi }$ denotes a fixed hypothesis class with $d _ { \\mathcal { H } }$ VC-dimension. ",
"bbox": [
173,
611,
825,
724
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In transfer learning the goal is to find a hypothesis from $\\mathcal { H }$ that minimizing the target excess risk defined below based on a combination of source and target data. ",
"bbox": [
171,
729,
823,
760
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Definition 1 (Excess risk) For a hypothesis function $h \\in \\mathcal H$ and source and target label-feature data generated according to distributions $\\mathbb { P }$ and $\\mathbb { Q }$ $( ( \\pmb { x } _ { S } , y _ { S } ) \\sim \\mathbb { P }$ and $( \\pmb { x } _ { T } , \\pmb { y } _ { T } ) \\sim \\mathbb { Q } )$ , we define the source and target excess risks as follows ",
"bbox": [
173,
768,
825,
811
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/8bed66d7e12cbd52b0964c90a062dd1167fdce9b26cd8510b60777279d9a3ef8.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( h ) = \\mathbb { Q } [ h ( \\mathbf { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] - \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { T } ^ { * } ( \\mathbf { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ]\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
344,
814,
651,
832
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "and ",
"bbox": [
173,
834,
202,
848
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/367fe765182f3a8464385a5370987108764d33d5fb90ef1fac069d81b0bd5955.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { c } { \\displaystyle \\varepsilon _ { S } ( h ) = \\mathbb { P } [ h ( \\pmb { x } _ { S } ) \\neq y _ { S } ] - \\mathbb { P } [ h _ { S } ^ { \\ast } ( \\pmb { x } _ { S } ) \\neq y _ { S } ] } \\\\ { \\displaystyle h _ { T } ^ { \\ast } = \\arg \\operatorname* { m i n } _ { h \\in \\mathcal { H } } \\mathbb { Q } [ h ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] a n d h _ { S } ^ { \\ast } = \\arg \\operatorname* { m i n } _ { h \\in \\mathcal { H } } \\mathbb { P } [ h ( \\pmb { x } _ { S } ) \\neq y _ { S } ] } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
173,
849,
709,
888
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Next, we need to define an appropriate notion of distance between the source and target. In the literature of domain adaptation, where the conditional expectation remains unchanged and there is ",
"bbox": [
173,
895,
821,
924
],
"page_idx": 2
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "only a shift in input distributions, it is common to define the distance as the error of performance of the best source hypothesis in the target task. We also define the distance between source and target as the target excess risk of the best source hypothesis. ",
"bbox": [
173,
103,
825,
147
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Definition 2 (Transfer distance) We define the transfer distance between a source and a target with distributions $\\mathbb { P }$ and $\\mathbb { Q }$ as follows ",
"bbox": [
171,
156,
823,
185
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/b11f0b3b4f4065ef6b13ffb2a276be6c050dfed880b72c8b55b59abf57fb1f3d.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } , \\mathbb { Q } ) : = \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { S } ^ { \\ast } ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] - \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { T } ^ { \\ast } ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ]\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
333,
189,
665,
208
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Since we aim to derive a minimax lower bound for transfer learning in binary classifications, we consider the class of pairs of distributions whose transfer distance is within a fixed number $\\Delta$ . As we will elaborate further in Remark 7 below this notion of distance can be easily estimated/computed in practice. ",
"bbox": [
173,
218,
825,
275
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "4 MAIN RESULTS ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
294,
336,
310
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In this section we characterize the fundamental limits of transfer learning in binary classifications by deriving a minimax lower bound via information-theoretic arguments. ",
"bbox": [
173,
325,
823,
354
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Theorem 1 Consider a transfer learning problem where there are $n _ { S }$ and $n _ { T }$ number of source as well as target data and the hypothesis class $\\mathcal { H }$ has $V C$ dimension $d _ { \\mathcal { H } }$ obeying $d _ { \\mathcal { H } } \\geq 1 0$ . Furthermore, suppose that $\\hat { h } = \\hat { h } ( S _ { \\mathbb { P } } , S _ { \\mathbb { Q } } )$ is an estimated hypothesis for the target task using source and target data in which $S _ { \\mathbb { P } }$ and $S _ { \\mathbb { Q } }$ denote i.i.d. feature-label data p rs $\\{ ( \\pmb { x } _ { S } ^ { ( i ) } , \\pmb { y } _ { S } ^ { ( i ) } ) \\} _ { i = 1 } ^ { n _ { S } }$ and $\\{ ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ^ { ( i ) } , \\pmb { y } _ { T } ^ { ( i ) } ) \\} _ { i = 1 } ^ { n _ { T } }$ generated according to the source and target distributions $\\mathbb { P }$ and $\\mathbb { Q }$ . Fix a transfer distance $\\Delta < 0 . 9 9$ . Then for any $\\hat { h }$ there exists $( \\mathbb { P } , \\mathbb { Q } )$ with $\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } , \\mathbb { Q } ) \\leq \\Delta$ and a universal constant $c$ such that ",
"bbox": [
173,
364,
826,
458
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/cc624f66a7391cce80c9448fc7b10d7d402550f1a54082f148fe7cdabb631719.jpg",
"text": "$$\nP _ { \\mathit { P } , \\mathit { S } _ { \\mathbb { Q } } } \\bigg ( \\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( \\hat { h } ) > c \\cdot \\epsilon ( n _ { S } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta ) \\bigg ) \\geq \\frac { 3 - 2 \\sqrt { 2 } } { 8 } ,\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
325,
462,
669,
503
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "where ",
"bbox": [
173,
507,
215,
521
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/5cbce3d81817022bfe6e631e97ecef77737700e7973dce15397373e9c68e6deb.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\epsilon ( n _ { S } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta ) = \\sqrt { \\frac { 1 } { \\frac { n _ { T } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } } + \\frac { n _ { S } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } + n _ { S } \\Delta } } } .\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
367,
523,
632,
565
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "This also implies that ",
"bbox": [
174,
569,
316,
583
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/94c6c6aa8ccfe81f2219cddc939bdacaa65c7fce6edd89d1c902de4202d7da87.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\operatorname* { i n f } _ { \\hat { h } } \\operatorname* { s u p } _ { \\rho ( \\mathbb { P } , \\mathbb { Q } ) \\leq \\Delta } \\operatorname* { \\mathbb { E } } _ { S _ { \\mathbb { P } } , S _ { \\mathbb { Q } } } \\Big [ \\mathcal E _ { T } ( \\hat { h } ) \\Big ] \\geq c \\cdot \\epsilon ( n _ { S } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal H } , \\Delta ) .\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
330,
587,
666,
619
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 1 The bound above characterizes the fundamental limits of transfer learning by providing a lower bound on the excess risk of any algorithm (regardless of computational tractability) as a function of the number of source and target training data, the similarity/distance between the source and target tasks and the dimension of the hypothesis class used. ",
"bbox": [
173,
630,
825,
686
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 2 The assumption $\\Delta < 0 . 9 9$ in the statement of Theorem 1 is just made for simplifying the analysis and the upper bound of 0.99 can be replaced by any constant in the interval $( 0 , 1 )$ . ",
"bbox": [
171,
696,
823,
727
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 3 One can show that the numerical constant c in equation 4.1 obeys c > 3−2 248 . ",
"bbox": [
168,
738,
763,
758
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 4 (Connection to PAC learning) We note that the well-known agnostic PAC learning result for a single task gives a lower bound of $c \\cdot \\sqrt { \\frac { d _ { \\mathscr { H } } } { n } }$ where $n$ is the number of samples of the task. Theorem 1 recovers this result when there is not any source task, namely $n _ { S } = 0$ , and the transfer learning problem reduces to learning a task without any prior knowledge from the source. ",
"bbox": [
173,
766,
826,
834
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 5 (Identical source and target) When the source and target tasks are identical, then the transfer learning problem reduces to learning a single task with $n _ { S } + n _ { T }$ training data. Theorem 1, also leads to the same conclusion in this special case as when the source and target data are identical ∆ = 0 and thus \u000f = q $\\begin{array} { r } { \\epsilon = \\sqrt { \\frac { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } } { n _ { S } + n _ { T } } } } \\end{array}$ which states that the lower bound is proportional to reciprocal of combination of source and target samples as expected. ",
"bbox": [
173,
843,
826,
924
],
"page_idx": 3
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 6 (Sharpness in a special case) We note that the above lower bound is known to be tight in special cases. For instance when there is a small amount of source data and $\\Delta$ is rather large, the lower bound reduces to dHn which is known to be tight based on known agnostic PAC learning bounds. ",
"bbox": [
174,
103,
825,
169
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 7 (How to apply Theorem 1 in practical settings.) In this remark we explain how Theorem 1 can be applied when using contemporary machine learning models involving artificial neural networks. In this case, the hypothesis class corresponds to all neural networks with a fixed architecture but different parameters. It is known that the class of neural networks with a fixed architecture has finite VC dimension and Harvey et al. (2017) gives upper and lower bounds for VC dimension of neural networks with ReLU activation functions. Thus, to apply Theorem 1, one only needs to have an estimate of the transfer distance per Definition 2. We note that the transfer distance 3.1 consists of two terms: To estimate the first term, we note that $h _ { S } ^ { * }$ can be easily estimated due to the abundance of source data in most applications. Also with an estimate of $h _ { S } ^ { * }$ in hand one can estimate $\\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { S } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { T } ) \\neq { \\ - { \\boldsymbol y } _ { T } } ]$ rather accurately using a simple empirical average with a few target test data as well-known concentration of bounded functions imply that this empirical average is well concentrated around $\\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { S } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { T } ) \\neq { \\ - { \\boldsymbol y } _ { T } } ]$ . Up on first glance it seems that estimating the second term which corresponds to the lowest possible error in the target domain among the hypothesis class, requires a large amount of labeled target data which is not available in a practical problem. However, in an overparametrized setting, it is typical to assume that there exists a network which achieves very small target generalization error so we can ignore the second term in most practical problems. Finally we note that as stated earlier the lower bound on the target excess risk gives an estimate of what generalization performance we can expect with a certain number of source and target samples. Furthermore, by comparing the estimated transfer distance of different pairs of tasks, we can find the pairs that are more suitable for transfer learning. This knowledge can in turn significantly reduce the required number of target samples to achieve a certain accuracy. ",
"bbox": [
173,
180,
825,
473
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Next, we extend our result to a multiple source transfer learning setup where instead of only one source task there are several source tasks available and the goal is to transfer knowledge from multiple sources to a given target task to achieve a small target generalization error. ",
"bbox": [
174,
484,
825,
527
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Theorem 2 Suppose that there are $n _ { S _ { 1 } } , n _ { S _ { 2 } } , . . . , n _ { S _ { N } }$ number of samples from $N$ source tasks as well as $n _ { T }$ number of samples from a target task and the hypothesis class $\\mathcal { H }$ has VC dimension $d _ { \\mathcal { H } }$ obeying $d _ { \\mathcal { H } } \\ge \\operatorname* { m a x } { ( N + 9 , N / 2 ) }$ . Furthermore, suppose that $\\hat { h } = \\hat { h } ( S _ { \\mathbb { P } _ { 1 } } , S _ { \\mathbb { P } _ { 2 } } , . . . , S _ { \\mathbb { P } _ { N } } , S _ { \\mathbb { Q } } )$ is an estimated e tarand $N$ sources and target data where generated according to souce a $S _ { \\mathbb { P } _ { j } }$ and targe $S _ { \\mathbb { Q } }$ denstrib e i.i.ions dataand {(x(i)Sj , y(i)Sj )} ji=1 $\\{ ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ^ { ( i ) } , \\pmb { y } _ { T } ^ { ( i ) } ) \\} _ { i = 1 } ^ { n _ { T } }$ $\\mathbb { P } _ { j }$ $\\mathbb { Q }$ for $j = 1 , . . . , N$ . Fix transfer distances $\\{ \\Delta _ { j } \\} _ { j = 1 } ^ { N }$ where $0 \\leq \\Delta _ { j } \\leq 1$ . Then for any $\\hat { h }$ there exists $( \\mathbb { P } _ { 1 } , . . . , \\mathbb { P } _ { M } , \\mathbb { Q } )$ with $\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } _ { j } , \\mathbb { Q } ) \\leq \\Delta _ { j }$ and a universal constant c such that ",
"bbox": [
173,
537,
826,
652
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/c2e69984897141ec6f1e6db13ccb05326412dda14439c09d31d50ad1a5fd15f5.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\operatorname* { P r o b } _ { S _ { \\mathrm { P } _ { 1 } } , \\dots , S _ { \\mathrm { P } _ { N } } , S _ { \\mathrm { Q } } } \\Bigg ( \\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( \\hat { h } ) > c \\cdot \\epsilon ( n _ { S _ { 1 } } , \\dots , n _ { S _ { N } } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta _ { 1 } , . . . , \\Delta _ { N } ) \\Bigg ) \\geq \\frac { 3 - 2 \\sqrt { 2 } } { 8 } ,\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
238,
656,
758,
699
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "where ",
"bbox": [
173,
704,
215,
717
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/10714a1e3a3059f2e066753346bf4b545b9f0b507d8b408c32f15e2c37308954.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\epsilon ( n _ { S _ { 1 } } , . . . , n _ { S _ { N } } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta _ { 1 } , . . . , \\Delta _ { N } ) = \\sqrt { \\frac { 1 } { \\frac { n _ { T } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } } + \\frac { n _ { S _ { 1 } } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } + n _ { S _ { 1 } } \\Delta _ { 1 } } + . . . + \\frac { n _ { S _ { N } } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } + n _ { S _ { N } } \\Delta _ { N } } } } .\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
233,
720,
764,
763
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "This in turn implies that ",
"bbox": [
174,
767,
334,
781
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/8c1ae3d2063bbfe004744586a39a15eeb61c6a8eba192bc3c6ce4cef655eb056.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\operatorname* { i n f } _ { \\hat { h } } \\operatorname* { s u p } _ { \\rho ( \\mathbb { P } _ { j } , \\mathbb { Q } ) \\leq \\Delta _ { j } } S _ { \\mathbb { P } _ { 1 } , \\ldots , \\mathbb { P } _ { N } , S _ { \\mathbb { Q } } } \\Big [ \\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( \\hat { h } ) \\Big ] \\geq c \\cdot \\epsilon ( n _ { S _ { 1 } } , . . . , n _ { S _ { N } } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta _ { 1 } , . . . , \\Delta _ { N } ) .\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
240,
786,
756,
829
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 8 Similar to the previous theorem, Theorem 2 provides a minimax lower bound for target excess risk with the key distinction that now it applies in the setting where there are multiple source with different transfer distances to the target. This theorem characterizes the exces risk achievable by any algorithm as a function of these transfer distances as well as the number of samples from the different sources and the target data. Theorem 2 indicates that the more sources we have, the better performance we can achieve in the target domain. However, this performance gain maybe marginal for source tasks that have a large transfer distance to the target or where there are very few training data. In these cases of course it may be more computationally efficient to discard these sources given the marginal improvement in the generalization performance suggested by this theorem. ",
"bbox": [
173,
839,
825,
924
],
"page_idx": 4
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "",
"bbox": [
173,
103,
825,
147
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 9 (Identical sources) if all the source tasks are identical, then there are effectively $n _ { S _ { 1 } } ~ + ~ . . . ~ + ~ n _ { S _ { N } }$ number of source samples and by Theorem 1 the lower bound would be 1PNj=1 nSj . Theorem 2 also gives the same order wise lower bound as nT + dH dH+∆ PNj=1 nSj ",
"bbox": [
173,
156,
825,
223
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/57a113d83402013b437fcb88ca432b9a348d35f06a962b20191fccb31df3858f.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r } { \\sqrt { \\frac { 1 } { \\frac { n _ { T } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } } + \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } \\frac { n _ { j } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } + \\Delta n _ { j } } } } \\le \\sqrt { \\frac { 1 } { \\frac { n _ { T } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } } + \\frac { \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } + \\Delta \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } } } } \\le \\sqrt { N } \\cdot \\sqrt { \\frac { 1 } { \\frac { n _ { T } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } } + \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } \\frac { n _ { j } } { d _ { \\mathcal { H } } + \\Delta n _ { j } } } } } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
174,
223,
679,
267
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 10 (Infinitely many source samples) When ∆i > 0 and nSi → ∞, the fraction nSidH+nS ∆i saturates at $\\frac { 1 } { \\Delta _ { i } }$ which shows that when the source and target have positive distance, the source can never compensate for the target samples. ",
"bbox": [
173,
277,
825,
330
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Remark 11 In the lower bound, the product terms $\\Delta _ { i } n _ { S _ { i } }$ appear which indicate that a source with large transfer distance can sometimes be as useful as a source with small transfer distance when there is a large amount of training data available from that source. ",
"bbox": [
173,
342,
823,
385
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
404,
419,
420
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In this section we evaluate our theoretical results on real data sets for action recognition and image classification tasks. By estimating the parameters appearing in Theorem 1 for different pairs of tasks, we first plot the lower bounds and then by running weighted empirical risk minimization investigate the sharpness of the bounds. We also investigate the effectiveness of different source tasks with different transfer distances on the target generalization error. ",
"bbox": [
174,
434,
825,
506
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "5.1 ACTION RECOGNITION ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
521,
375,
535
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Experimental setup. We first perform experiments on the UCF101 action recognition data set. We pick CricketBowling and TableTennis videos from UCF101 as the target task as well as three different pairs of classes as the source tasks: 1- CricketBowling and BaseballPitch, 2- Cricketshot and Archery, 3- BasketballDunk and Basketball. We pass the videos through an i3d network pretrained on kinetics400 Carreira & Zisserman (2017) with the fully connected top classifier removed and extract the corresponding features of dimension 2048 from the raw videos. We then work with the extracted features instead of the raw videos. ",
"bbox": [
173,
546,
825,
645
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Training. We train a one hidden layer neural network with 15 number of hidden units and ReLU activation functions for each pair of data sets. Table 3 consists of test accuracy on CricketBowling vs. TableTennis, when using the network trained on each source task. We use these accuracies for deriving the corresponding lower bounds. Furthermore, we run weighted empirical risk minimization as a simple transfer learning approach to find some upper bounds on the target generalization error. Given $n _ { S }$ and $n _ { T }$ number of source and target samples, for estimating the corresponding one hidden layer neural network parameters we minimize the following weighted empirical risk ",
"bbox": [
173,
650,
825,
750
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/3c19850b2377a8366c3c35efac700649b14797e228f9403eabe5cee32aa0f04d.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\operatorname* { m i n } _ { W _ { 1 } , W _ { 2 } } \\frac { 1 - \\lambda } { n _ { T } } \\sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n _ { T } } \\mathbf { C o s t } ( W _ { 2 } \\mathbf { R e L U } ( W _ { 1 } \\pmb { x } _ { T } ^ { ( i ) } ) , y _ { T } ^ { ( i ) } ) + \\frac { \\lambda } { n _ { S } } \\sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { n _ { S } } \\mathbf { C o s t } ( W _ { 2 } \\mathbf { R e L U } ( W _ { 1 } \\pmb { x } _ { S } ^ { ( i ) } ) , y _ { S } ^ { ( i ) } )\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
181,
752,
784,
794
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "where the function Cost denotes the logistic regression cost and $\\lambda \\in \\{ 0 , 0 . 2 , 0 . 4 , 0 . 6 , 0 . 8 , 1 \\}$ . We then pick the lambda which minimizes the target test error. ",
"bbox": [
171,
804,
825,
833
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Results. First we calculate the transfer distance by Definition 2 for each source/target pairs using Table 1. To this end, we assume that best target generalization error is zero and using the Table 1 we obtain the transfer distance for each pair which is demonstrated in Table 2. As it can be observed by Table 2, the pair of Source1 and Target has the lowest transfer distance among other pairs since both of the source and target tasks share a same class which is CricketBowling. Furthermore, Table 2 determines which pairs are more suitable for transferring the source knowledge to the target. ",
"bbox": [
173,
839,
825,
924
],
"page_idx": 5
},
{
"type": "table",
"img_path": "images/4bb8800ad63456739c3720d9a7e28ad40a8a471860367c5e46a894b0ed7212fd.jpg",
"table_caption": [
"Table 1 "
],
"table_footnote": [],
"table_body": "<table><tr><td>Task</td><td>Test accuracy of Target us- ing the source network</td></tr><tr><td>Target:CricketBowlingvs.TableTennis Source1: CricketBowling vs.Baseball Pitch Source2: Cricketshot vs.Archery Source3:BasketballDunk vs.Basketball</td><td>1 0.946 0.61 0.52</td></tr></table>",
"bbox": [
261,
102,
735,
188
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "table",
"img_path": "images/015860d91bcd3a380f0d20a130395c8ef195c05a1b440386bad5605cdabff171.jpg",
"table_caption": [],
"table_footnote": [],
"table_body": "<table><tr><td>pair of tasks</td><td>p(Source,Target)</td></tr><tr><td>(Source1, Target)</td><td>0.053</td></tr><tr><td>(Source2, Target)</td><td>0.39</td></tr><tr><td>(Source3,Target)</td><td>0.48</td></tr></table>",
"bbox": [
348,
227,
648,
286
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Table 2: Transfer distance of pairs of source and target on UCF101 action recognition. ",
"bbox": [
214,
296,
779,
311
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "image",
"img_path": "images/2c241193221490f096d20c1db5bb3ebe4553c3e1b29a5f9a4c43fa4d3551c9e2.jpg",
"image_caption": [
"Figure 1: (a) depicts our lower bounds for three pairs of source and target tasks on action classification. (b) depicts the lower bounds along with the upper bounds obtained via weighted empirical risk minimization. "
],
"image_footnote": [],
"bbox": [
187,
327,
779,
513
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Next, we draw the lower bound curves for each pair in Fig 1a. To this end, we need to find the VC dimension of the hypothesis class which consists of neural networks with the architecture of $2 0 4 8 * 1 5 * 1$ with ReLU activation functions. Theorem 1 in Harvey et al. (2017) gives a lower bound for VC dimension of neural networks with ReLU activation functions by $\\begin{array} { r } { \\frac { 1 } { 6 4 0 } \\dot { W } \\dot { L } \\log _ { 2 } \\frac { W } { L } } \\end{array}$ where $W$ and are the number of parameters and layers, respectively. Then in Figure 1b we plot the lower bounds along with the upper bounds obtained via Formula 5.1 for three different pairs of source and target as well as using only target samples. We obtained these upper bounds by running Formula 5.1 five times and then averaging the results. Fig 1b shows that when the distance of a source from the target is small it would be more effective in achieving small target generalization error. We would like to mention that in all of these plots we choose the same number of source samples for each pair. ",
"bbox": [
174,
594,
825,
733
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Figure 2 shows the average $\\lambda$ , the weight appearing in Formula 5.1, when the number of target samples is 100 to 150. It shows that in the pair Source1 and Target the average $\\lambda$ is high which demonstrate the usefulness of the source in the target task. Furthermore, the small value of $\\lambda$ in the pair Source3 and Target suggests that when the transfer distance is high, source samples are no longer usefull. ",
"bbox": [
174,
741,
825,
810
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "5.2 IMAGE CLASSIFICATION ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
828,
383,
842
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Experimental setup. In this section we focus on image classification tasks and utilize Theorem 1 to recognize appropriate pairs of tasks that are suitable for transfer learning. We choose some classes of the DomainNet data set Peng et al. (2019) as source and target tasks. We pick Clock and Ambulance from DomainNet Clipart for the target task and three different pairs of classes as the source tasks: 1- Clock and Ambulance, 2- Cricketshot and TableTennis, 3- TableTennis and FrontCraw. Here we ",
"bbox": [
174,
853,
825,
924
],
"page_idx": 6
},
{
"type": "image",
"img_path": "images/1df4f1137b5f43be56ef563df21cd603dfe5643d8bffa4d7a5b2e8b91d2fa116.jpg",
"image_caption": [
"Figure 2: Average $\\lambda$ in weighted empirical risk minimization for three different pairs of source and target tasks for action recognition. "
],
"image_footnote": [],
"bbox": [
359,
98,
640,
224
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "table",
"img_path": "images/e82dd66dddbb4945be0d81c77adaaa3d5b80a765efe387e96e7043766fe30a4b.jpg",
"table_caption": [
"Table 3 "
],
"table_footnote": [],
"table_body": "<table><tr><td>Task</td><td>Test Accuracy of Target using the source network</td></tr><tr><td>Target: Clock vs. Ambulance (Clipart) Source1: Clock vs.Ambulance (Sketch) Source2: Clock vs. Crow(Sketch)</td><td>0.916 0.697</td></tr></table>",
"bbox": [
261,
281,
735,
368
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "image",
"img_path": "images/13e028571da16adec8995d8d638a4e0ce066f5cf2190ce602d12a912311c3bd1.jpg",
"image_caption": [
"Figure 3: (a) depicts our lower bounds for three pairs of source and target tasks on image classification. (b) depicts the lower bounds along with the upper bounds obtained via weighted empirical risk minimization. "
],
"image_footnote": [],
"bbox": [
196,
416,
781,
598
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "table",
"img_path": "images/33c339905dc6a07bdd4a9080faf43de277ba01cee2fa67e11a373a258ecd5764.jpg",
"table_caption": [],
"table_footnote": [],
"table_body": "<table><tr><td>pair of tasks</td><td>p(Source, Target)</td></tr><tr><td>(Source1, Target)</td><td>0.083</td></tr><tr><td>(Source2, Target)</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>(Source3, Target)</td><td>0.35</td></tr></table>",
"bbox": [
348,
669,
648,
728
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Table 4: Transfer distance of pairs of source and target on DomainNet image classifications]. ",
"bbox": [
191,
738,
802,
753
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "use ResNet50 network pretrained on Imagenet for extracting features of dimension 2048 and in the sequel we work with the extracted features rather than the raw image data. ",
"bbox": [
174,
784,
821,
811
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Training. We train a one hidden layer neural network with 15 number of hidden units and ReLU activation functions for each of pairs of the tasks. Table 3 includes the test accuracy on the target task when using the networks trained on different sources, which is necessary for estimating/calculating the transfer distance as demonstrated in Table 4. Similar to the subsection 5.1, we also run weighted empirical risk minimization for finding upper bounds for the pairs of the source and target tasks. ",
"bbox": [
174,
818,
825,
888
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Results. Similar to the previous section on action recognition, using Table 3 we can obtain the transfer distances and based on this distance we can identify suitable pairs of source and target tasks for transfer learning. In the pair1 Source and target tasks share the same objects which are Clock and Ambulance which results in low transfer distance. In pair2, still one of the objects which is Clock is the same in the source and target and we can see that the transfer distance for pair2 is lower than that for pair3. Then we plot the lower bounds in Fig 3a and the corresponding upper bounds obtained by weighted empirical risk minimization in Fig 3b. One can see that sources that are closer to the target according to our notion of distance are more effective in achieving small target generalization error. ",
"bbox": [
173,
895,
823,
924
],
"page_idx": 7
},
{
"type": "image",
"img_path": "images/7a303c3706559f7a90ce3dfe420c8b7330324be99f6ba51d8e74ec5e3805fcc7.jpg",
"image_caption": [
"Figure 4: Average $\\lambda$ in weighted empirical risk minimization for three different pairs of source and target tasks for image classification. "
],
"image_footnote": [],
"bbox": [
361,
98,
640,
224
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "",
"bbox": [
173,
290,
825,
375
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "CricketBowling is common both in the source and Target1. This suggests that these tasks are similar to each other and the estimated transfer distance conforms with this intuition. Furthermore, CricketBowling and Cricketshot are intuitively similar to one another and this is also reflected in the lower transfer distance between source and Target2. ",
"bbox": [
174,
381,
825,
436
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In Fig 4 we plot the average $\\lambda$ , the weight appearing in Formula 5.1 when the number of target samples varies from 150 to 200. 4 demonstrates that when a source is close to the target the weight of source risk in weighted empirical risk becomes high which shows the effectiveness of source samples in achieving small target generalization error. ",
"bbox": [
174,
444,
825,
501
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "6 PROOF OUTLINE",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
174,
520,
343,
536
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "The main idea of proof is based on the following proposition proved in Tsybakov (2009) ",
"bbox": [
174,
551,
751,
566
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Proposition 1 [Theorem 2.5 of Tsybakov (2009)] Assume that $M \\geq 2$ and the function $d ( \\cdot , \\cdot )$ is a semi-distance. Also suppose that $\\{ P _ { \\theta _ { j } } \\} _ { \\theta _ { j } \\in \\Theta }$ is a family of distributions indexed over a parameter space, $\\Theta$ , and $\\Theta$ contains elements $\\theta _ { 0 } , \\bar { \\theta } _ { 1 } , . . . , \\theta _ { M }$ such that: ",
"bbox": [
174,
577,
826,
621
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/7d8273f42d18c53cb998b4153a3dd2ae520f7b101cbf282a2be487792abd913b.jpg",
"text": "$$\nd ( \\theta _ { i } , \\theta _ { j } ) \\geq 2 s > 0 , \\ \\forall 0 \\leq j < k \\leq M\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
230,
632,
495,
648
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "(ii) $P _ { j } \\ll P _ { 0 } , \\ \\forall \\ j = 1 , . . . , M .$ , and ",
"bbox": [
205,
655,
446,
671
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/e2c49d38ef7ce39bd19178d1c98fbe4a52106f16bc3c92bafbfa854aa4e2f3fb.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\frac { 1 } { M } \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { M } { \\mathcal { D } } _ { k l } ( P _ { j } | P _ { 0 } ) \\leq \\alpha \\log M\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
423,
679,
632,
723
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "with $0 < \\alpha < 1 / 8$ and $P _ { j } = P _ { \\theta _ { j } }$ , $j = 0 , 1 , . . . , M$ and $\\mathcal { D } _ { k l }$ denotes the KL-divergence. Then ",
"bbox": [
232,
729,
821,
746
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/c4c241467485be3eafb8654a97f572e1d7abb12b5fd076d296ec66f7449e8de3.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\operatorname* { i n f } _ { \\hat { \\theta } } \\operatorname* { s u p } _ { \\theta \\in \\Theta } P _ { \\theta } ( d ( \\hat { \\theta } , \\theta ) \\geq s ) \\geq \\frac { \\sqrt { M } } { 1 + \\sqrt { M } } \\big ( 1 - 2 \\alpha - \\sqrt { \\frac { 2 \\alpha } { \\log M } } \\big )\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
333,
752,
722,
790
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Based on Proposition 1 we construct a family of pairs of distributions, namely source and target distributions, whose transfer distances satisfy the $\\Delta$ -constraint. To do so we pick some points from the domain $\\chi$ shattered by the hypothesis class and define appropriate distributions on this set of points. Furthermore, this family of distributions are indexed in the space of $\\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ which can be a metric space using Hamming distance. In order to satisfy the condition (i) in Proposition 1, the indexes have to be well separated which can be achieved using the well-known Gilbert-Varshamov’s bound. Finally we show that estimating a parameter with small hamming distance is equivalent to estimating an appropriate hypothesis with small excess risk error. ",
"bbox": [
173,
803,
825,
915
],
"page_idx": 8
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "REFERENCES ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
102,
287,
117
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Anqi Liu, Fanny Yang, and Animashree Anandkumar. Regularized learning for domain adaptation under label shifts. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. ",
"bbox": [
174,
126,
826,
167
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Shai Ben-David, John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, Fernando Pereira, et al. Analysis of representations for domain adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 19:137, 2007. ",
"bbox": [
171,
176,
823,
207
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Shai Ben-David, John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Fernando Pereira, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. A theory of learning from different domains. Machine learning, 79(1):151–175, 2010. ",
"bbox": [
174,
215,
823,
244
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, Alex Kulesza, Fernando Pereira, and Jennifer Wortman. Learning bounds for domain adaptation. In NIPS, 2007. ",
"bbox": [
171,
253,
825,
282
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Joao Carreira and Andrew Zisserman. Quo vadis, action recognition? a new model and the kinetics dataset. In proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 6299–6308, 2017. ",
"bbox": [
173,
291,
825,
333
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Xinyang Chen, Sinan Wang, Mingsheng Long, and Jianmin Wang. Transferability vs. discriminability: Batch spectral penalization for adversarial domain adaptation. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, 2019. ",
"bbox": [
174,
342,
826,
400
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Shai Ben David, Tyler Lu, Teresa Luu, and David P ´ al. Impossibility theorems for domain adaptation. ´ In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 129–136. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010. ",
"bbox": [
174,
409,
826,
452
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Tomer Galanti, Lior Wolf, and Tamir Hazan. A theoretical framework for deep transfer learning. Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 5(2):159–209, 2016. ",
"bbox": [
176,
460,
825,
489
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Steve Hanneke and Samory Kpotufe. On the value of target data in transfer learning. In NeurIPS, 2019. ",
"bbox": [
174,
497,
825,
526
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Nick Harvey, Christopher Liaw, and Abbas Mehrabian. Nearly-tight vc-dimension bounds for piecewise linear neural networks. In Conference on learning theory, pp. 1064–1068. PMLR, 2017. ",
"bbox": [
174,
536,
825,
565
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Alireza Karbalayghareh, Xiaoning Qian, and Edward R Dougherty. Optimal bayesian transfer regression. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 25(11):1655–1659, 2018. ",
"bbox": [
174,
574,
825,
603
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Alireza Karbalayghareh, Xiaoning Qian, and Edward Russell Dougherty. Optimal bayesian transfer learning for count data. IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics, 2019. ",
"bbox": [
174,
611,
826,
655
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 25:1097–1105, 2012. ",
"bbox": [
174,
662,
825,
707
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Qi Lei, Wei Hu, and Jason Lee. Near-optimal linear regression under distribution shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 6164–6174. PMLR, 2021. ",
"bbox": [
169,
715,
825,
746
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Mingsheng Long, Han Zhu, Jianmin Wang, and Michael I Jordan. Unsupervised domain adaptation with residual transfer networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016. ",
"bbox": [
173,
753,
825,
784
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Yishay Mansour, Mehryar Mohri, and Afshin Rostamizadeh. Domain adaptation: Learning bounds and algorithms. In 22nd Conference on Learning Theory, COLT 2009, 2009. ",
"bbox": [
171,
791,
823,
820
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Yishay Mansour, Mehryar Mohri, Jae Ro, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Ke Wu. A theory of multiplesource adaptation with limited target labeled data. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 2332–2340. PMLR, 2021. ",
"bbox": [
176,
829,
823,
872
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Seyed Mohammadreza Mousavi Kalan, Zalan Fabian, Salman Avestimehr, and Mahdi Soltanolkotabi. Minimax lower bounds for transfer learning with linear and one-hidden layer neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. ",
"bbox": [
176,
881,
825,
924
],
"page_idx": 9
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 22(10):1345–1359, 2009. ",
"bbox": [
171,
103,
823,
132
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Xingchao Peng, Qinxun Bai, Xide Xia, Zijun Huang, Kate Saenko, and Bo Wang. Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1406–1415, 2019. ",
"bbox": [
176,
140,
821,
183
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Jian Shen, Yanru Qu, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. Wasserstein distance guided representation learning for domain adaptation. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018. ",
"bbox": [
171,
190,
825,
219
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Alexandre B Tsybakov. Introduction to Nonparametric Estimation. Springer series in statistics. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009. doi: 10.1007/b13794. ",
"bbox": [
173,
228,
823,
256
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Karl Weiss, Taghi M Khoshgoftaar, and DingDing Wang. A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big data, 3(1):1–40, 2016. ",
"bbox": [
178,
265,
825,
294
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "7 APPENDIX ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
174,
318,
294,
334
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "7.1 PROOF OF THEOREM 1 ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
174,
348,
372,
363
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "We also use the following famous result in information theory known as Gilbert-Varhsamov’s bound for packing argument. ",
"bbox": [
173,
375,
825,
405
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Proposition 2 (Lemma 2.9 of Tsybakov (2009)) Let $d \\_ 8$ . Then there exists a subset $\\{ w ^ { ( 0 ) } , . . . , w ^ { ( M ) } \\}$ of $\\Omega = \\{ - 1 , \\mathrm { \\bar { 1 } } \\} ^ { d }$ such that $w ^ { ( 0 ) } = ( 1 , 1 , . . . , 1 )$ , ",
"bbox": [
171,
414,
823,
445
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/f6b493e691595152c71338845cdff381f598128497689d2bf6d2a7d054288642.jpg",
"text": "$$\nd i s t ( w ^ { ( j ) } , w ^ { ( k ) } ) \\geq \\frac { d } { 8 } , \\ \\forall 0 \\leq j < k \\leq M a n d M \\geq 2 ^ { d / 8 } ,\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
307,
449,
687,
479
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "where $\\begin{array} { r } { d i s t ( w , w ^ { \\prime } ) = \\sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { d } I ( w _ { k } \\ne w _ { k } ^ { \\prime } ) } \\end{array}$ is the Hamming distance between binary sequences $w = ( w _ { 1 } , . . . , w _ { d } )$ and $\\boldsymbol { w } ^ { \\prime } = \\bar { ( } w _ { 1 } ^ { \\prime } , . . . , w _ { d } ^ { \\prime } )$ . ",
"bbox": [
173,
484,
823,
517
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "We will also use the following lemma proved in Hanneke & Kpotufe (2019). We would like to mention that some ideas of the proof are similar to those in Hanneke & Kpotufe (2019). However, as discussed in section 2, the problem setting of Hanneke & Kpotufe (2019) is different from that of this work which results in constructing a different set of distributions. ",
"bbox": [
173,
526,
825,
583
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Lemma 1 Let $0 < \\epsilon < 1 / 2$ and $z \\in \\{ - 1 , 1 \\}$ . Then ",
"bbox": [
173,
593,
514,
609
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/4828ff1f7aec6729fb1b7348e4bd530420929c0b4f9981033fd4676f44bee708.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\mathcal { D } _ { k l } \\bigg ( B e r \\big ( 1 / 2 + ( z / 2 ) \\cdot \\epsilon \\big ) , B e r \\big ( 1 / 2 - ( z / 2 ) \\cdot \\epsilon \\big ) \\bigg ) \\le c _ { 0 } \\cdot \\epsilon ^ { 2 } f o r s o m e c _ { 0 } \\le 4 i n d e p ,\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
189,
613,
736,
647
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Now we are in place to provide the proof of Theorem 1. Let $d = d _ { \\mathcal { H } } - 2$ and pick $\\pmb { x } _ { - 1 } , \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } , . . . , \\pmb { x } _ { d }$ from $\\chi$ shattered by $\\mathcal { H }$ . ",
"bbox": [
176,
659,
821,
688
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Next, we construct a family of pairs of distributions $\\left( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } , \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } \\right)$ indexed by $w \\in \\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ where $\\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ is the parameter space playing the role of $\\Theta$ in Proposition 1. For the following, fix $\\epsilon =$ $\\begin{array} { r } { \\dot { c } _ { 1 } \\cdot \\epsilon ( \\dot { n _ { S } } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } ^ { \\cdot } , \\Delta ) \\leq \\frac { 1 } { 2 } } \\end{array}$ for some constant $c _ { 1 }$ to be determined later in proof and $\\epsilon ( n _ { S } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta )$ is defined in Theorem 1. ",
"bbox": [
173,
693,
826,
750
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Distribution $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w } \\colon \\mathbb { Q } _ { w }$ is composed of a marginal and a conditional distribution, namely $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w } =$ $\\mathbb { Q } _ { x } ^ { w } \\times \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | x } ^ { w }$ . We define the marginaldistributions as follows: ",
"bbox": [
171,
756,
821,
786
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/d84c28e37c0bc3d3f125e90b0113f50db790c891892b54f012c8b7b7aa220881.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { l l l } { \\mathbb { Q } _ { x } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { - 1 } ) = \\Delta } \\\\ { \\mathbb { Q } _ { x } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { 0 } ) = 0 . 9 9 - \\Delta } \\\\ { \\mathbb { Q } _ { \\pmb x } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { i } ) = \\displaystyle \\frac { 1 } { 1 0 0 d } \\mathrm { f o r } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
372,
791,
625,
862
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "For the conditional distributions: ",
"bbox": [
173,
863,
390,
877
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/efca9a2b8b8b954f76e0452c62405345dc616295d7a7dd534be10dab25eadf6e.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { - 1 } ) = \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { i } ) = 1 / 2 + ( w _ { i } ) \\epsilon \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
325,
881,
673,
922
],
"page_idx": 10
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Distribution $\\mathbb { P } _ { w }$ : $\\mathbb { P } _ { w }$ is composed of a marginal and a conditional distribution, namely $\\mathbb { P } _ { w } =$ $\\mathbb { P } _ { x } ^ { w } \\times \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x } ^ { w }$ . We define the marginal distributions as follows: ",
"bbox": [
168,
103,
823,
132
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/d3d0b43c36674461ec8ef939913b82325f74ec1e7a6a9fc1e6e33d321456acd6.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { l l l } { \\displaystyle \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { - 1 } ) = \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 / 2 \\big ( 1 - \\frac { d } { d + n _ { S } \\Delta } \\big ) } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { i } ) = \\frac { 1 } { d + n _ { S } \\Delta } \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
318,
137,
679,
203
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "For the conditional distributions: ",
"bbox": [
173,
203,
390,
217
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/4be167508deaf5ee6508ebbd0cf2a08748ac083628dd34d91d1166864799b860.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { \\mathbb { P } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { - 1 } ) = 0 } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { P } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { P } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { i } ) = 1 / 2 + ( w _ { i } ) \\epsilon \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
323,
219,
671,
280
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Verifying $\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } , \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } ) \\leq \\Delta$ : Bayes classifier of the domain generated by $\\mathbb { P } _ { w }$ is as follows: ",
"bbox": [
171,
281,
759,
297
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/5aaaa6e33dd5bbc8e456624989a8b5fbadf6ba07307a406c27ffb7a6fc4c15dd.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { h _ { S } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { - 1 } ) = 0 } \\\\ & { h _ { S } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { h _ { S } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { i } ) = 1 \\mathrm { i f } w _ { i } = 1 \\mathrm { , , o t h e r w i s e } h _ { S } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { i } ) = 0 \\mathrm { f o r } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
284,
299,
712,
352
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Similarly for the domain generated by $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w }$ , we have ",
"bbox": [
174,
353,
514,
367
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/4fc579e2f99bd0ce951af4d71aa968812fd6c6bca0f05ea836841c704b154552.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { h _ { T } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { - 1 } ) = h _ { T } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { h _ { T } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { i } ) = 1 \\mathrm { i f } w _ { i } = 1 \\mathrm { , o t h e r w i s e } h _ { T } ^ { * } ( { \\pmb x } _ { i } ) = 0 \\mathrm { f o r } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
284,
369,
714,
405
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "So $h _ { S } ^ { * }$ and $h _ { T } ^ { * }$ disagree only on ${ \\pmb x } _ { - 1 }$ which implies that ",
"bbox": [
173,
406,
539,
421
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/eb6e1bf0578ba67796515fc16f4e0a5ea117df9513a8d38a08383fcebc1a6084.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } , \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } ) = \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { S } ^ { \\ast } ( { \\pmb x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] - \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { T } ^ { \\ast } ( { \\pmb x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] = \\Delta\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
307,
422,
691,
440
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Since we want to derive a lower bound for the minimax risk stated in Theorem 1, among the hypotheses that they agree on $\\mathbf { \\boldsymbol { x } } _ { i }$ for $i = 1 , . . . , d$ , the hypothesis that outputs ${ \\pmb x } _ { - 1 }$ and $\\scriptstyle { \\pmb x } _ { 0 }$ as 1 results in a smaller target error. Hence, we can restrict ourselves to $\\tilde { \\mathcal { H } }$ which is the projection of $\\mathcal { H }$ onto $\\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ with the constraint that $h ( \\pmb { x } _ { - 1 } ) = h ( \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1$ for all $h \\in \\tilde { \\mathcal { H } }$ . Furthermor, for any $w , w ^ { \\prime } \\in \\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ we have ",
"bbox": [
173,
449,
826,
523
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/df150745bf6e2f61646ee55386173930870964749e9bc2236e0c4a5b24aeaace.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( h _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) = \\frac { \\mathrm { d i s t } ( w , w ^ { \\prime } ) } { 1 0 0 d } \\cdot \\epsilon , ~ \\forall ~ h _ { w ^ { \\prime } } \\in \\tilde { \\mathcal { H } }\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
369,
525,
629,
556
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "when the target domain is generated by $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w }$ ",
"bbox": [
174,
558,
457,
573
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Reduction to a packing: By using Proposition 2, we can get a subset $\\Sigma$ of $\\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ whose cardinality is $M \\geq 2 ^ { d / 8 }$ and for any $w , w ^ { \\prime }$ belonging to $\\Sigma$ we have $\\operatorname* { l i s t } ( w , w ^ { \\prime } ) \\geq d / 8$ . Furthermore, for any $w , w ^ { \\prime } \\in \\Sigma$ we have ",
"bbox": [
173,
579,
825,
622
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/d806dc2a8e1a45316cfe4e4686cf3c1524d0e441e81b314604beb1822dc609f3.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( h _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) \\geq \\frac { d } { 8 } \\cdot \\frac { \\epsilon } { 1 0 0 d } = \\frac { \\epsilon } { 8 0 0 }\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
401,
625,
596,
655
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "On the other hand, there is a bijective map between $\\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ and elements of $\\tilde { \\mathcal { H } }$ and any classifier $\\hat { h } : \\{ { \\pmb x } _ { i } \\} \\{ 0 , 1 \\}$ with $\\hat { h } ( { \\pmb x } _ { - 1 } ) = \\hat { h } ( { \\pmb x } _ { 0 } ) = 1$ can be reduced to a $w \\in \\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ . So we can choose $\\Sigma$ as the set of indices in Proposition 1 with Hamming distance as the semi-metric and the expression $P _ { w } ( \\mathrm { d i s t } ( \\hat { w } , w ) > d / 8 )$ translates into $P _ { w } ( \\mathcal { E } _ { T } ( h _ { \\hat { w } } ) > c \\cdot \\epsilon )$ . ",
"bbox": [
173,
659,
826,
718
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "KL divergence bound (part (ii) of Proposition 1): Define $P _ { w } = \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { n _ { S } } \\times \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } ^ { n _ { T } }$ . For any $w , w ^ { \\prime } \\in \\Sigma$ we have ",
"bbox": [
173,
723,
823,
752
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/dda90f027f9f50b7da746aaa2a608e769472d1d58d089d2a94eb3f2f3f026f0f.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { l } { \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( P _ { w } | P _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) = n _ { S } \\cdot \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } | \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { \\prime } ) + n _ { T } \\cdot \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } | \\mathbb { Q } _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\quad = n _ { S } \\cdot \\frac { \\mathbb { E } } { \\mathbb { P } _ { \\alpha } } \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { P } _ { y | \\alpha } ^ { w } | \\mathbb { P } _ { y | \\alpha } ^ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) + n _ { T } \\cdot \\mathbb { E } \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | x } ^ { w } | \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | x } ^ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\quad = n _ { S } \\cdot \\sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { d } \\frac { 1 } { d + n _ { S } \\Delta } \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x _ { i } } ^ { w } | \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x _ { i } } ^ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) + n _ { T } \\cdot \\sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { d } \\frac { 1 } { 1 0 0 d } \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | x _ { i } } ^ { w } | \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | x _ { i } } ^ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\quad \\leq n _ { S } \\cdot \\frac { d } { d + n _ { S } \\Delta } c _ { 0 } \\epsilon ^ { 2 } + n _ { T } \\cdot \\frac { 1 } { 1 0 0 } c _ { 0 } \\epsilon ^ { 2 } } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\quad \\leq c _ { 0 } c _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } . } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
207,
753,
789,
900
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "if $\\begin{array} { r } { c _ { 1 } < \\frac { 1 } { 6 } } \\end{array}$ then $c _ { 0 } c _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } < \\frac { 1 } { 8 }$ and we can apply Proposition 1. ",
"bbox": [
173,
907,
547,
926
],
"page_idx": 11
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Proof of Theorem 2 is similar to that of Theorem 1. However, we construct different target and source probability distributions. ",
"bbox": [
171,
128,
825,
159
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Let $d \\ = \\ d _ { \\mathcal { H } } \\ - \\ N - \\ 1$ and pick $x _ { - M } , . . . , x _ { 0 } , x _ { 1 } , . . . , x _ { d }$ from $\\chi$ shattered by $\\mathcal { H }$ . Then we construct a family of distributions $( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( 1 ) } , . . . , \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( N ) } , \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } )$ indexed by $w ~ \\in ~ \\{ - 1 , 1 \\} ^ { d }$ . Let $\\epsilon =$ $c _ { 1 } \\cdot \\epsilon ( n _ { S _ { 1 } } , . . . , n _ { S _ { N } } , n _ { T } , d _ { \\mathcal { H } } , \\Delta _ { 1 } , . . . , \\Delta _ { N } )$ for some constant $c _ { 1 } < 1$ to be determined later in proof. Furthermore, without loss of generality assume that $1 \\ge \\Delta _ { 1 } \\ge \\Delta _ { 2 } \\ge . . . \\ge \\Delta _ { N } \\ge 0$ . ",
"bbox": [
173,
165,
826,
226
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Distribution $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w } \\colon \\mathbb { Q } _ { w }$ is composed of a marginal and a conditional distribution, namely $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w } =$ $\\mathbb { Q } _ { x } ^ { w } \\times \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | x } ^ { w }$ . We define the marginal distributions as follows: ",
"bbox": [
171,
231,
825,
261
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/e9e5b8904808a8fed2ebb930113e1db6e92d7d487cfd8fdc010449713b33850e.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { l } { { \\mathbb Q } _ { x } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { - i } ) = \\Delta _ { i } - \\Delta _ { i + 1 } \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } i = 1 , . . . , N - 1 \\mathrm { ~ a n d ~ } \\mathbb Q _ { { \\pmb x } } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { - N } ) = \\Delta _ { N } } \\\\ { { \\mathbb Q } _ { { \\pmb x } } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { 0 } ) = 0 . 9 9 - \\Delta _ { 1 } } \\\\ { { \\mathbb Q } _ { { \\pmb x } } ^ { w } ( { \\pmb x } = { \\pmb x } _ { i } ) = \\displaystyle \\frac 1 { 1 0 0 d } \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } i = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
236,
268,
761,
339
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "For the conditional distributions: ",
"bbox": [
173,
343,
390,
358
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/1854d41c2c0260a4149d15784617ba953546d885b71c6fb61a5ec23085fd47af.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { - i } ) = 1 \\mathrm { f o r } i = 1 , . . . , N } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { i } ) = 1 / 2 + ( w _ { i } ) \\epsilon \\mathrm { f o r } i = 1 , . . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
321,
363,
676,
426
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Distribution $\\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( i ) } \\colon \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( i ) }$ is composed of a marginal and a conditional distribution, namely $\\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( i ) } =$ $\\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w ( i ) } \\times \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { y } | \\pmb { x } } ^ { w ( i ) }$ x(i). We define the marginal distributions as follows: ",
"bbox": [
171,
434,
823,
468
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/493b53dd2330737e9c4713e5429764f738cfac2afb9fbe73404e0ffd63720a8a.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { l l } { \\displaystyle \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w ( i ) } ( \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { - j } ) = \\frac { 1 } { N + 1 } \\big ( 1 - \\frac { d } { d + n _ { S _ { i } } \\Delta _ { i } } \\big ) \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } j = 1 , . . . , N } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w ( i ) } ( \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = \\frac { 1 } { N + 1 } \\big ( 1 - \\frac { d } { d + n _ { S _ { i } } \\Delta _ { i } } \\big ) } \\\\ { \\displaystyle \\mathbb { P } _ { \\pmb { x } } ^ { w ( i ) } ( \\pmb { x } = \\pmb { x } _ { j } ) = \\frac { 1 } { d + n _ { S _ { i } } \\Delta _ { i } } \\mathrm { ~ f o r ~ } j = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
289,
477,
709,
580
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "For the conditional distributions: ",
"bbox": [
173,
585,
390,
599
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/be7ca788c3d35cefcb8072d3c144774d69b545dd45d64dcfad3eece9fddf6940.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | x = x _ { - j } ) = 0 \\mathrm { i f } j \\geq i , \\mathrm { o t h e r w i s e } \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | x = x _ { - j } ) = 1 \\mathrm { f o r } j = 1 , . . . } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | x = x _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { \\mathbb { P } _ { y | x } ^ { w } ( y = 1 | x = x _ { j } ) = 1 / 2 + ( w _ { j } ) \\epsilon \\mathrm { f o r } j = 1 , . . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
187,
606,
781,
667
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Verifying $\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( i ) } , \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } ) \\leq \\Delta _ { i }$ ",
"bbox": [
174,
684,
366,
702
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Bayes classifier of the domain generated by $\\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( i ) }$ is as follows: ",
"bbox": [
173,
709,
580,
727
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/7c117f4ca1d1aa05f502e08c66a6e3c6901262d5c93c8754db2e5bd5f5257d5f.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { * } ( \\boldsymbol { x } _ { - j } ) = 0 \\mathrm { i f } j \\geq i , \\mathrm { o t h e r w i s e } h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { * } ( \\boldsymbol { x } _ { - j } ) = 1 \\mathrm { f o r } j = 1 , . . . , N } \\\\ & { h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { * } ( \\boldsymbol { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { * } ( \\boldsymbol { x } _ { j } ) = 1 \\mathrm { i f } w _ { j } = 1 , \\mathrm { o t h e r w i s e } h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { * } ( \\boldsymbol { x } _ { j } ) = 0 \\mathrm { f o r } j = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
271,
732,
722,
791
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "Similarly for the domain generated by $\\mathbb { Q } _ { w }$ , we have ",
"bbox": [
174,
795,
514,
811
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/1bdfa6b731e98014c985ce7720c50207b19c2b6d8941e6d5712b7a8a6dd524d5.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } & { h _ { T } ^ { * } ( \\pmb { x } _ { - j } ) = 1 \\mathrm { f o r } j = 1 , . . . , N } \\\\ & { h _ { T } ^ { * } ( \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1 } \\\\ & { h _ { T } ^ { * } ( \\pmb { x } _ { j } ) = 1 \\mathrm { i f } w _ { j } = 1 , \\mathrm { o t h e r w i s e } h _ { T } ^ { * } ( \\pmb { x } _ { j } ) = 0 \\mathrm { f o r } j = 1 , . . , d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
281,
816,
715,
872
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "So $h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { * }$ and $h _ { T } ^ { * }$ disagree on $\\pmb { x } _ { - i } , . . , \\pmb { x } _ { - N }$ which implies that ",
"bbox": [
173,
877,
563,
893
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/1fa467d600b617b573ad168363ac52e464d481ff42e1afb14c3bcad5da0931b2.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\rho ( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( i ) } , \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } ) = \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { S _ { i } } ^ { \\ast } ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] - \\mathbb { Q } [ h _ { T } ^ { \\ast } ( \\pmb { x } _ { T } ) \\neq y _ { T } ] = \\Delta _ { i }\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
300,
901,
696,
921
],
"page_idx": 12
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "With the same argument we used in the proof of Theorem 1 we can restrict ourselves to $\\tilde { \\mathcal { H } }$ which is the projection of $\\mathcal { H }$ with the constraint that $h ( \\pmb { x } _ { - N } ) = \\ldots = h ( \\pmb { x } _ { - 1 } ) = h ( \\pmb { x } _ { 0 } ) = 1$ for all $h \\in \\tilde { \\mathcal { H } }$ . ",
"bbox": [
171,
103,
825,
135
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "The rest of the proof is exactly the same except the part regarding the KL divergence bound. ",
"bbox": [
176,
140,
776,
155
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "KL divergence bound: Define $P _ { w } = \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( 1 ) ^ { n _ { S _ { 1 } } } } \\times \\ldots \\times \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( N ) ^ { n _ { S _ { N } } } } \\times \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } ^ { n _ { T } } .$ 1 × ... × P(N )w nSN × ",
"bbox": [
173,
161,
648,
181
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "equation",
"img_path": "images/f5a15e30f96dbbc1332084bb2f85d24c7e1aec9e9abe8d7511d0e8910c21ac0e.jpg",
"text": "$$\n\\begin{array} { r l } { { \\operatorname* { P } _ { k l } ( P _ { w } | P _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) = \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } \\cdot P _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { P } _ { w } ^ { ( j ) } | \\mathbb { P } _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ^ { ( j ) } ) + n _ { I } \\cdot \\mathcal { P } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { Q } _ { w } | \\mathbb { Q } _ { w ^ { \\prime } } ) } } \\\\ & { = \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } \\cdot \\mathbb { E } _ { \\mathbb { P } } \\mathbb { P } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { P } _ { y | z } ^ { w } ) | \\mathbb { P } _ { y | z } ^ { w ^ { \\prime } ( j ) } ) + n _ { T } \\cdot \\mathbb { E } _ { \\mathbb { P } } \\mathcal { P } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | z } ^ { w } | \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | z } ^ { n ^ { \\prime } } ) } \\\\ & { = \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } \\cdot \\displaystyle \\sum _ { \\mathrm { i } = 1 } ^ { G } \\frac { 1 } { d + n _ { S _ { j } } \\Delta _ { j } } \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( | \\mathbb { P } _ { y | z } ^ { w } ( \\cdot ) ( i ) | \\mathbb { P } _ { y | z _ { h } } ^ { n ^ { \\prime } } ( \\cdot ) + n _ { T } \\cdot \\displaystyle \\sum _ { \\mathrm { i } = 1 } ^ { d } \\frac { 1 } { 1 0 0 d } \\mathcal { D } _ { k l } ( \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | z _ { h } } ^ { w } | \\mathbb { Q } _ { y | z _ { h } } ^ { n ^ { \\prime } } ) } \\\\ & { \\leq \\displaystyle \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } \\cdot \\frac { d } { d + n _ { S _ { j } } \\Delta _ { j } } c _ { 0 } e ^ { 2 } + n _ { T } \\cdot \\frac { 1 } { 1 0 0 } c _ { 0 } e ^ { 2 } } \\\\ & { \\leq \\displaystyle \\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { N } n _ { S _ { j } } \\cdot \\frac { d } { d + n _ { S _ { j } } \\Delta _ { j } } c _ { 0 } e ^ { 2 } + n _ { T } \\cdot \\frac { 1 } { 1 0 0 } c _ { 0 } e ^ { 2 } } \\\\ & { \\leq c _ { 0 } c _ { j } ^ { 2 } . d } \\end{array}\n$$",
"text_format": "latex",
"bbox": [
181,
205,
834,
410
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "for small enough $c _ { 1 }$ we can apply Proposition 1. ",
"bbox": [
174,
421,
488,
438
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "7.3 ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ",
"text_level": 1,
"bbox": [
176,
454,
488,
468
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "text",
"text": "In section 5 we fix number of source samples and vary the number of target samples. Here in order to investigate the effect of source samples on the target generalization error, we fix the number of target samples at $\\cdot$ and vary the number of source samples. Fig 5 depicts the theoretical lower bounds along with the upper bounds obtained by empirical risk minimization for image classifications. We use the same source/target pairs as used in section 5.2. Fig 5 demonstrates that Source1 is more helpful in reducing the target generalization error because it has a low distance from the target. Furthermore, it shows that increasing the number of source samples is useful up to a point and beyond that point the error saturates and does not decrease further as discussed in Remark 10. ",
"bbox": [
173,
479,
826,
590
],
"page_idx": 13
},
{
"type": "image",
"img_path": "images/68afa0a6eca3c2060650667d2fbccf678290c955da93e7e8eaee731207bf9f06.jpg",
"image_caption": [
"Figure 5: Depicts the lower bounds along with the upper bounds obtained via weighted empirical risk minimization. In this setting the number of target samples is fixed at $n _ { T } = 3$ "
],
"image_footnote": [],
"bbox": [
328,
612,
658,
810
],
"page_idx": 13
}
] |