Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Fixed-Gaussian Spectral Algorithms: Minimax Optimal Rates for Misspecified Learning and Transfer

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernels allow any spectral algorithm to achieve minimax optimal rates in misspecified nonparametric regression, and the same kernel choice makes hypothesis transfer learning rate-optimal under concept shift.

desk verdict A genuinely new minimax result for Gaussian spectral algorithms, but the central theorem leans on an unproven eigenfunction assumption and the transfer proof has a repairable gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10870 v2 pith:2TVOFEFQ submitted 2025-01-18 stat.ML cs.LG

Haotian Lin , Matthew Reimherr This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.LG MSC 62G0862G2046E35
keywords spectralalgorithmsGaussiankernelminimaxoptimalitymisspecificationsaturationeffecthypothesistransferlearningconceptshiftSobolevspace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that misspecified learning with spectral algorithms can be optimal for any algorithm, not just those with high qualification. In nonparametric regression where the truth lies in a Sobolev space, using a fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernel as the imposed RKHS, any spectral algorithm—kernel ridge regression, gradient flow, kernel principal component regression—reaches the minimax excess-risk rate when the regularization parameter decays exponentially, with log(1/λ) ≍ $n^{{2/(2m+d)}}$. This removes the saturation effect, the phenomenon where low-qualification algorithms stall at slower rates no matter how smooth the truth is. The same Gaussian machinery is embedded in a hypothesis transfer learning framework under concept shift, yielding minimax-optimal excess risk up to logarithmic factors and revealing that transfer efficiency is governed by the relative signal strength ξ ∝ R_δ²/R_P² between the shift and source functions. A reader should care because these results say a single kernel choice can make a broad class of algorithms robust to model misspecification and adaptive to unknown smoothness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernel used as the misspecified hypothesis space. Its Fourier transform is exp(-C||ω||²), so its RKHS embeds into every Sobolev space H^m for m > d/2; this infinite smoothness turns the approximation error into (log 1/λ)^{-m} via Fourier arguments and Plancherel's identity. The estimation error is controlled through the effective dimension N(λ) = tr((T_K+λI)^{-1}T_K), which for Gaussian eigenvalues s_j ≍ exp(-C j²) is O($n^{{d/(2m+d)}}$) under the exponential choice of λ. A supporting technical condition, Assumption 4, bounds sup_x Σ_j s_j/(s_j+λ) e_j²(x) by E_K² N(λ), a strict weakening of uniform boundedness of the kernel eigenfunctions; the proof of Theorem 1 relies on it to convert operator concentration into the estimation error bound.

What would settle it

Compute, on a compact domain in R^d with the multivariate Gaussian kernel, the quantity sup_x Σ_j s_j/(s_j+λ) e_j²(x) / N(λ) for a sequence λ→0; if it diverges, Assumption 4 fails and the proof of Theorem 1 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: under Sobolev smoothness assumptions and moment-controlled noise, if the true regression function f_Q lies in $H^{{m_Q}}$ and the estimator is any spectral algorithm with a fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernel, choosing log(1/λ) ≍ $n^{{2/(2m_Q+d)}}$ gives || \hat f_Q - f_Q ||²_{L2} = O($n^{{-2m_Q/(2m_Q+d)}}$) with high probability. The smoothness of the Gaussian RKHS is not estimated; it is effectively infinite, so the approximation error decays like log(1/λ)^{-m_Q} rather than $λ^{{m_Q/m'_Q}}$, and an exponentially small λ converts this logarithmic decay into the polynomial minimax rate. Because this holds for every filter function, no matter its qualification τ, the saturation effect disappears. The paper then proves a matching lower bound and an upper bound for hypothesis transfer learning under concept shift, showing the excess risk is bounded by the pre-training error (n_P/log n_P)^{-2m_P/(2m_P+d)} plus ξ times the fine-tuning error (n_Q/log n_Q)^{-2m_δ/(2m_δ+d)}, with ξ ∝ R_δ²/R_P²; this is minimax optimal up to logarithms. The paper also shows that the error caused by using an estimated source function to build intermediate labels is not amplified by the fine-tuning step, a refinement over earlier kernel-ridge transfer analyses.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on an unproved bound (Assumption 4) asserting that the weighted eigenfunction sum Σ_j s_j/(s_j+λ) e_j²(x) stays uniformly bounded by the effective dimension; for multivariate Gaussian kernels this is still open, and if it fails the saturation-free minimax claim for arbitrary spectral algorithms is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any spectral algorithm—kernel ridge regression, gradient descent or flow, kernel principal component regression—becomes minimax optimal for Sobolev truths when run with a fixed Gaussian kernel and exponentially small λ, no matter its qualification.
  • The same kernel choice makes the algorithm adaptive: training-validation over a coarse smoothness grid loses only a log n factor, so users do not need to know the true smoothness m in advance.
  • In hypothesis transfer learning under concept shift, the excess risk decomposes into a source pre-training term and a target fine-tuning term, with a phase transition at ξ* = (n_Q/log n_Q)^{2mδ/(2mδ+d)}(n_P/log n_P)^{-2mP/(2mP+d)}; below ξ* the pre-training term dominates and transfer beats target-only learning.
  • The plug-in error from using an estimated source function to construct intermediate labels is bounded by the pre-training error itself, not amplified by a factor growing in n_Q, so a good pre-trained model does not destabilize fine-tuning.
  • The transfer rates are minimax optimal up to logarithmic factors, and the relative signal strength ξ, not just the shift radius R_δ alone, governs how much source data helps.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Assumption 4 were proven for multivariate Gaussian kernels, Theorem 1 would become unconditional; a numerical check on domains of dimension 2 and 3 could give early evidence about whether the weighted eigenfunction sum stays uniformly bounded.
  • The same Fourier-based argument should extend to other infinitely smooth, rapidly decaying stationary kernels whose RKHSs also embed into all Sobolev spaces, such as inverse multiquadratics.
  • The exponential order of λ implies that practical implementations must choose λ extremely small as n grows; finite-sample interpolation may be sensitive to the constant in the exponent, a point the paper does not address.
  • The form of ξ as R_δ²/R_P² suggests a testable design principle: pre-processing the target representation to reduce the angle between f^P and f^Q should improve transfer efficiency even when the shift size is unchanged.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernel spectral algorithms in nonparametric regression when the true regression function lies in a Sobolev space, claiming that any spectral algorithm, regardless of qualification, attains the minimax rate n^{-2m/(2m+d)} when the regularization parameter decays exponentially (Theorem 1), and that an adaptive selection rule attains this rate up to logarithmic factors (Theorem 2). It then proposes RAHTL, a hypothesis transfer learning procedure under concept shift, and derives minimax lower and upper bounds whose rates involve a new factor xi = R_delta^2/R_P^2 capturing the relative signal strength between the intermediate and source functions (Theorems 3 and 4). Numerical experiments are reported for both single-task and transfer settings.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would make a substantial contribution: it would remove the saturation barrier for arbitrary spectral algorithms, provide a clean exponential schedule for the regularization parameter, and identify a phase transition in transfer learning governed by the ratio xi. The paper is also honest in its appendix about the provenance of its key technical assumption. However, the principal result is conditional on Assumption 4, an unproved eigenfunction bound for Gaussian kernels, and the transfer upper-bound proof drops a residual term without visible justification. The claimed theorems are therefore not established as stated; the core value is real but conditional on resolving or explicitly assuming an open technical condition.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1; Appendix A.1, Assumption 4] The statement of Theorem 1 lists only Assumptions 2 and 3, but the proof of the estimation error goes through Lemma 6 and Theorem 6, whose first inequality is exactly Assumption 4: sup_x sum_j s_j/(s_j+lambda) e_j^2(x) <= E_K^2 N(lambda). As Remark 1 and the remark following Assumption 4 concede, this bound is not established in the literature and even uniform boundedness of Gaussian eigenfunctions is a long-standing open problem. Without Assumption 4, the only generally available control is the crude bound kappa^2/lambda, which is far too large under the exponential choice log(1/lambda) ~ n^{2/(2m+d)} to yield the n^{-m/(2m+d)} estimation rate. Consequently, the saturation-free minimax claim for arbitrary spectral algorithms is not proven as stated. Please either prove Assumption 4 for the relevant Gaussian integral operator, or make it an explicit hypothesis of Theorem 1 (and of Theorems 2 and 4, which inherit it), and align the abstract and introduction with the resulting conditional statement.
  2. [Appendix B.2, proof of Theorem 4 around Eq. (27)] The bound for the fine-tuning error I obtained from Theorem 7 contains the residual term 4*sqrt(2) log(6/delta) n_Q^{-m_delta/(2m_delta+d)} in addition to the term proportional to ||hat f^P - f^P||_{L2}. In passing from that displayed bound to Eq. (27), the paper squares and keeps only the pretraining term, dropping the residual without explanation. Because the residual does not involve n_P, it is not automatically negligible merely from the standing assumption n_P >> n_Q; one must show either that it is of smaller order than the kept term or that it is absorbed into the fine-tuning term of Eq. (26). Please provide the explicit arithmetic for this step or adjust the claimed upper bound.
  3. [Appendix B.1, Theorem 3 and Eq. (24)] There is a mismatch between Theorem 3 and its proof. The theorem states the lower bound with n_Q^{-2m_delta/(2m_delta+d)}, while the displayed 'alternative version' in Eq. (24) uses n_Q^{-m_delta/(2m_delta+d)}. Furthermore, the theorem statement does not include the transfer-learning regime n_P >> n_Q, but the proof's first case yields the rate (n_P+n_Q)^{-2m_P/(2m_P+d)} and the equivalence with n_P^{-2m_P/(2m_P+d)} relies on that regime. Please correct the exponent typo and state the regime in which the claimed lower bound is intended to hold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.2, proof of Theorem 2] The symbol m is used both for the Sobolev smoothness in the candidate set A and for the split sample size in the training/validation proof, making expressions such as E(lambda_m, m) confusing; please use a different symbol for the validation sample size.
  2. [Section 5.2] The word 'Figrue' appears in the discussion of Figure 5 and should be corrected to 'Figure'.
  3. [Section 4.2, Theorem 3] The term R^2 in the first lower-bound component is ambiguous; since xi already absorbs R_delta^2/R_P^2, the displayed constant should be written as R_P^2 or the notation should be defined explicitly.
  4. [Section 4.3, Example 1] The notation xi is used both for the abstract ratio R_delta^2/R_P^2 appearing in the upper bound and for the concrete norm ratio ||f_delta||^2/||f^P||^2 in the example; please clarify the relationship between these two objects.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central minimax rates are derived from explicit Fourier-based approximation bounds and standard concentration estimates; the unproven Assumption 4 is a limitation, not an input-output identification.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 1 decomposes the excess risk into approximation error (Theorem 5) and estimation error (Theorem 6). The approximation error is proved directly from the Fourier transform of the Gaussian kernel and the filter-function inequalities, yielding the bound ||f_lambda - f_0||^2 <= C log(1/lambda)^{-m0}. The regularization schedule log(1/lambda) ≍ n^{2/(2m0+d)} is then chosen analytically from this bound, not fitted to data. The estimation error uses standard integral-operator concentration (Lemmas 2-8) and the Gaussian eigenvalue decay N(lambda) = O(n^{d/(2m0+d)}), again with no fitted constant entering the claimed rate. The only load-bearing extra input is Assumption 4, a uniform control of the Gaussian eigenfunction sum; Remark 1 explicitly concedes that whether this assumption holds for Gaussian kernels is not addressed in existing literature. That is an unproven assumption and a genuine limitation, but it is not circular: the theorem does not define its conclusion in terms of Assumption 4, and the stated claim is explicitly conditional on it. The same-author citation to Lin and Reimherr (2024b) is used only for the proportionality constant in the standard minimax lower bound (Lemma 10) and as a comparison in Proposition 2; it is not used to establish the new saturation-free upper bound, so it is not load-bearing circularity. One minor proof omission is the residual term of order n_Q^{-m_delta/(2m_delta+d)} dropped when passing from Theorem 7 to Eq. (27); this is a repairable bookkeeping gap under n_P >> n_Q and is not a construction-by-fit. Overall, no prediction in the paper reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard smoothness and noise assumptions plus one paper-specific technical assumption, Assumption 4, that is not proven for Gaussian kernels. No new physical entities are introduced; the transfer method uses only existing constructions such as spectral algorithms, Gaussian kernels, and transformation functions.

free parameters (3)
  • Regularization exponent constant C = unspecified
    λ = exp{-C n^{2/(2m+d)}}; the theorem requires C to be small enough relative to kernel eigenvalue decay constants, but no value is given.
  • Gaussian kernel bandwidth h = fixed but unspecified
    The theory states 'fixed bandwidth' but never quantifies h; all constants in the rates may depend on h.
  • Candidate smoothness grid endpoints and spacing = m_min, m_max, Δm = 1/log n
    The adaptive procedure in Section 3.2 requires a finite grid with m_min > d/2 and m_max ≥ m_Q; these are user choices.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: f^P, f^Q, f^δ belong to Sobolev balls H^{m_P}(R_P), H^{m_Q}(R_Q), H^{m_δ}(R_δ) with exponents m_t > d/2.
    Defines the parameter space and smoothness used for minimax rates; stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: noise moments satisfy E[|ε|^r | x] ≤ (1/2) r! σ^2 L^{r-2}.
    Sub-Gaussian-type tail condition needed for Bernstein concentration; Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: g and G are invertible in a paired sense (G_y^{-1} = g_y), Lipschitz, and consistent (f^δ = E[g(Y,f^P(X))|X], G(f^δ,f^P)=f^Q).
    Standard hypothesis transfer learning assumptions; Section 2.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4: sup_x Σ_j s_j/(s_j+λ) e_j^2(x) ≤ E_K^2 N(λ).
    Technical effective-dimension bound used in Lemma 6 for the estimation error. The paper acknowledges it is unproven for Gaussian kernels and weaker than the open uniform-boundedness problem; it is not listed in Theorem 1's statement.
  • domain assumption Concept shift: source and target share the same marginal distribution P_X = Q_X while regression functions differ.
    Defines the transfer setting; Section 2.1.
  • standard math Filter function qualification conditions (3) and (4) for spectral algorithms.
    Definition 1, standard in the spectral algorithm literature following Bauer et al. 2007.
  • standard math Sobolev extension theorem, Mercer decomposition, and Fourier transform identities for Gaussian kernels.
    Used in Appendix A.3 for the approximation error and in general RKHS theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixed-Gaussian Spectral Algorithms: Minimax Optimal Rates for Misspecified Learning and Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TVOFEFQ

@misc{pith2026250110870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixed-Gaussian Spectral Algorithms: Minimax Optimal Rates for Misspecified Learning and Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TVOFEFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10870}
}
read the original abstract

The principal objective of this work is twofold within nonparametric regression settings: (1) to establish the minimax optimal convergence rates for fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernel spectral algorithms when the true regression function resides in a Sobolev space, and (2) to apply Gaussian spectral algorithms for achieving robust and adaptive transfer learning under concept shift. While minimax optimality of misspecified spectral algorithms has been established, existing guarantees are typically restricted to the non-saturation regime. We demonstrate that the infinite smoothness of fixed-bandwidth Gaussian kernels provides universal robustness to model misspecification by showing that this kernel choice enables any spectral algorithm to attain minimax optimal rates, provided the regularization parameter decays exponentially. This result effectively decouples optimality from the algorithm's inherent qualification. Building on this, we then advocate Gaussian spectral algorithms as powerful components in a learning framework for robust and adaptive transfer. Specifically, we derive the adaptive convergence rate of the excess risk for this framework and show that the rates are optimal up to logarithmic factors. Our results also reveal the impact of the magnitude of the concept shift and the sample size on the generalization error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometric illustration for how ξ will affect the transfer efficiency. The length of the lines represents the magnitude of ∥f P ∥HmP , ∥f Q∥HmP and ∥f δ∥Hmδ , respectively. (a) The circle represents a ball centered around the f P with radius ∥f δ∥Hmδ . A key observation is θ = arcsin(∥f P − f Q∥Hmδ /∥f P ∥HmP ). (b) f P and f Q 1 possesses the same magnitude but a rather large angle while f P and f Q 2 possesses a sm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Error decay curves of spectral algorithms with Gaussian kernels under best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Error decay curves of spectral algorithms with Gaussian kernels under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Excess risk under different ξ and mδ with varied nQ. The theoretical convergence rate is n − 2mδ 2mδ+1 Q up to some constants. in Subsection 4.3. 6 Related Work 6.1 Hypothesis Transfer Learning Under plausible distribution shifts relating two domains, the technique of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excess risk under different ξ and mδ with fixed nQ. RKHS-norm for functional linear models. Other similar studies for more specific problems include linear regression [Zhang et al., 2022], binary classification [Reeve et al., 2021, Maity et al., 2022, 2024], Gaussian m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sobolev spaces

    Robert A Adams and John JF Fournier. Sobolev spaces. Elsevier, 2003

    2003

  2. [2]

    Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension

    Hamsa Bastani. Predicting with proxies: Transfer learning in high dimension. Management Science, 67 0 (5): 0 2964--2984, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    On regularization algorithms in learning theory

    Frank Bauer, Sergei Pereverzev, and Lorenzo Rosasco. On regularization algorithms in learning theory. Journal of complexity, 23 0 (1): 0 52--72, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Optimal rates for regularization of statistical inverse learning problems

    Gilles Blanchard and Nicole M \"u cke. Optimal rates for regularization of statistical inverse learning problems. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 18 0 (4): 0 971--1013, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Gagliardo-nirenberg, composition and products in fractional sobolev spaces

    Ha \" m Brezis and Petru Mironescu. Gagliardo-nirenberg, composition and products in fractional sobolev spaces. Journal of Evolution Equations, 1 0 (4): 0 387--404, 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Transfer learning for nonparametric regression: Non-asymptotic minimax analysis and adaptive procedure

    T Tony Cai and Hongming Pu. Transfer learning for nonparametric regression: Non-asymptotic minimax analysis and adaptive procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12272, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Transfer learning for nonparametric classification: Minimax rate and adaptive classifier

    T Tony Cai and Hongji Wei. Transfer learning for nonparametric classification: Minimax rate and adaptive classifier. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (1): 0 100--128, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Semi-supervised triply robust inductive transfer learning

    Tianxi Cai, Mengyan Li, and Molei Liu. Semi-supervised triply robust inductive transfer learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 0 (just-accepted): 0 1--22, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Optimal rates for regularization operators in learning theory

    Andrea Caponnetto. Optimal rates for regularization operators in learning theory. 2006

    2006

  2. [10]

    Optimal rates for the regularized least-squares algorithm

    Andrea Caponnetto and Ernesto De Vito. Optimal rates for the regularized least-squares algorithm. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 7: 0 331--368, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Besov spaces on domains in r\^ \ d \

    Ronald A DeVore and Robert C Sharpley. Besov spaces on domains in r\^ \ d \ . Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 335 0 (2): 0 843--864, 1993

    1993

  4. [12]

    Kernel ridge vs

    Lee H Dicker, Dean P Foster, and Daniel Hsu. Kernel ridge vs. principal component regression: Minimax bounds and the qualification of regularization operators. 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Nonparametric stochastic approximation with large step-sizes

    Aymeric Dieuleveut and Francis Bach. Nonparametric stochastic approximation with large step-sizes. 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Hypothesis transfer learning via transformation functions

    Simon S Du, Jayanth Koushik, Aarti Singh, and Barnab \'a s P \'o czos. Hypothesis transfer learning via transformation functions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Optimal regression rates for svms using gaussian kernels

    Mona Eberts and Ingo Steinwart. Optimal regression rates for svms using gaussian kernels. 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Reproducing kernels of generalized sobolev spaces via a green function approach with distributional operators

    Gregory E Fasshauer and Qi Ye. Reproducing kernels of generalized sobolev spaces via a green function approach with distributional operators. Numerische Mathematik, 119: 0 585--611, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Sobolev norm learning rates for regularized least-squares algorithms

    Simon Fischer and Ingo Steinwart. Sobolev norm learning rates for regularized least-squares algorithms. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21 0 (1): 0 8464--8501, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Empirical Processes in M-estimation, volume 6

    Sara A Geer. Empirical Processes in M-estimation, volume 6. Cambridge university press, 2000

    2000

  11. [19]

    Spectral algorithms for supervised learning

    L Lo Gerfo, Lorenzo Rosasco, Francesca Odone, E De Vito, and Alessandro Verri. Spectral algorithms for supervised learning. Neural Computation, 20 0 (7): 0 1873--1897, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Adaptive learning rates for support vector machines working on data with low intrinsic dimension

    Thomas Hamm and Ingo Steinwart. Adaptive learning rates for support vector machines working on data with low intrinsic dimension. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (6): 0 3153--3180, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Optimal parameter-transfer learning by semiparametric model averaging

    Xiaonan Hu and Xinyu Zhang. Optimal parameter-transfer learning by semiparametric model averaging. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (358): 0 1--53, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Gaussian processes and kernel methods: A review on connections and equivalences

    Motonobu Kanagawa, Philipp Hennig, Dino Sejdinovic, and Bharath K Sriperumbudur. Gaussian processes and kernel methods: A review on connections and equivalences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02582, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Marginal singularity and the benefits of labels in covariate-shift

    Samory Kpotufe and Guillaume Martinet. Marginal singularity and the benefits of labels in covariate-shift. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (6): 0 3299--3323, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Stability and hypothesis transfer learning

    Ilja Kuzborskij and Francesco Orabona. Stability and hypothesis transfer learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 942--950. PMLR, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Fast rates by transferring from auxiliary hypotheses

    Ilja Kuzborskij and Francesco Orabona. Fast rates by transferring from auxiliary hypotheses. Machine Learning, 106: 0 171--195, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Near-optimal linear regression under distribution shift

    Qi Lei, Wei Hu, and Jason Lee. Near-optimal linear regression under distribution shift. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6164--6174. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    A first course in fractional Sobolev spaces, volume 229

    Giovanni Leoni. A first course in fractional Sobolev spaces, volume 229. American Mathematical Society, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    On a problem of adaptive estimation in gaussian white noise

    OV Lepskii. On a problem of adaptive estimation in gaussian white noise. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 35 0 (3): 0 454--466, 1991

    1991

  21. [29]

    Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation and minimax optimality

    Sai Li, T Tony Cai, and Hongzhe Li. Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation and minimax optimality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84 0 (1): 0 149--173, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Transfer learning in large-scale gaussian graphical models with false discovery rate control

    Sai Li, T Tony Cai, and Hongzhe Li. Transfer learning in large-scale gaussian graphical models with false discovery rate control. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118 0 (543): 0 2171--2183, 2023 a

    2023

  23. [31]

    On the saturation effect of kernel ridge regression

    Yicheng Li, Haobo Zhang, and Qian Lin. On the saturation effect of kernel ridge regression. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023 b

    2023

  24. [32]

    Generalization error curves for analytic spectral algorithms under power-law decay

    Yicheng Li, Weiye Gan, Zuoqiang Shi, and Qian Lin. Generalization error curves for analytic spectral algorithms under power-law decay. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01599, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On hypothesis transfer learning of functional linear models

    Haotian Lin and Matthew Reimherr. On hypothesis transfer learning of functional linear models. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024 a

    2024

  26. [34]

    Smoothness adaptive hypothesis transfer learning

    Haotian Lin and Matthew Reimherr. Smoothness adaptive hypothesis transfer learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024 b

    2024

  27. [35]

    Optimal convergence for distributed learning with stochastic gradient methods and spectral algorithms

    Junhong Lin and Volkan Cevher. Optimal convergence for distributed learning with stochastic gradient methods and spectral algorithms. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21 0 (1): 0 5852--5914, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Optimal rates for spectral algorithms with least-squares regression over hilbert spaces

    Junhong Lin, Alessandro Rudi, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Volkan Cevher. Optimal rates for spectral algorithms with least-squares regression over hilbert spaces. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 48 0 (3): 0 868--890, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Distributed learning with regularized least squares

    Shao-Bo Lin, Xin Guo, and Ding-Xuan Zhou. Distributed learning with regularized least squares. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18 0 (1): 0 3202--3232, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Augmented transfer regression learning with semi-non-parametric nuisance models

    Molei Liu, Yi Zhang, Katherine P Liao, and Tianxi Cai. Augmented transfer regression learning with semi-non-parametric nuisance models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (293): 0 1--50, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Estimating posterior ratio for classification: Transfer learning from probabilistic perspective

    Song Liu and Kenji Fukumizu. Estimating posterior ratio for classification: Transfer learning from probabilistic perspective. In Proceedings of the 2016 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 747--755. SIAM, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Optimally tackling covariate shift in rkhs-based nonparametric regression

    Cong Ma, Reese Pathak, and Martin J Wainwright. Optimally tackling covariate shift in rkhs-based nonparametric regression. The Annals of Statistics, 51 0 (2): 0 738--761, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Minimax optimal approaches to the label shift problem in non-parametric settings

    Subha Maity, Yuekai Sun, and Moulinath Banerjee. Minimax optimal approaches to the label shift problem in non-parametric settings. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (346): 0 1--45, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    A linear adjustment-based approach to posterior drift in transfer learning

    Subha Maity, Diptavo Dutta, Jonathan Terhorst, Yuekai Sun, and Moulinath Banerjee. A linear adjustment-based approach to posterior drift in transfer learning. Biometrika, 111 0 (1): 0 31--50, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Regularization in kernel learning

    Shahar Mendelson and Joseph Neeman. Regularization in kernel learning. 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Optimal rates for vector-valued spectral regularization learning algorithms

    Dimitri Meunier, Zikai Shen, Mattes Mollenhauer, Arthur Gretton, and Zhu Li. Optimal rates for vector-valued spectral regularization learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14778, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A general class of transfer learning regression without implementation cost

    Shunya Minami, Song Liu, Stephen Wu, Kenji Fukumizu, and Ryo Yoshida. A general class of transfer learning regression without implementation cost. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 8992--8999, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Transfer learning with affine model transformation

    Shunya Minami, Kenji Fukumizu, Yoshihiro Hayashi, and Ryo Yoshida. Transfer learning with affine model transformation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Beating sgd saturation with tail-averaging and minibatching

    Nicole M \"u cke, Gergely Neu, and Lorenzo Rosasco. Beating sgd saturation with tail-averaging and minibatching. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    A survey on transfer learning

    Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 22 0 (10): 0 1345--1359, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    Statistical optimality of stochastic gradient descent on hard learning problems through multiple passes

    Loucas Pillaud-Vivien, Alessandro Rudi, and Francis Bach. Statistical optimality of stochastic gradient descent on hard learning problems through multiple passes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Inverse learning in hilbert scales

    Abhishake Rastogi and Peter Math \'e . Inverse learning in hilbert scales. Machine Learning, pages 1--31, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Optimal rates for the regularized learning algorithms under general source condition

    Abhishake Rastogi and Sivananthan Sampath. Optimal rates for the regularized learning algorithms under general source condition. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 3: 0 3, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Adaptive transfer learning

    Henry WJ Reeve, Timothy I Cannings, and Richard J Samworth. Adaptive transfer learning. The Annals of Statistics, 49 0 (6): 0 3618--3649, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Spectral methods for regularization in learning theory

    Lorenzo Rosasco, Ernesto De Vito, and Alessandro Verri. Spectral methods for regularization in learning theory. DISI, Universita degli Studi di Genova, Italy, Technical Report DISI-TR-05-18, 2005

    2005

  46. [54]

    Mapping properties of non-linear operators in spaces of triebel-lizorkin and besov type

    Th Runst. Mapping properties of non-linear operators in spaces of triebel-lizorkin and besov type. Analysis Mathematica, 12 0 (4): 0 313--346, 1986

    1986

  47. [55]

    A generalized representer theorem

    Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, Ralf Herbrich, and Alex J Smola. A generalized representer theorem. In International conference on computational learning theory, pages 416--426. Springer, 2001

    2001

  48. [56]

    A generalized neyman-pearson criterion for optimal domain adaptation

    Clayton Scott. A generalized neyman-pearson criterion for optimal domain adaptation. In Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages 738--761. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Learning theory estimates via integral operators and their approximations

    Steve Smale and Ding-Xuan Zhou. Learning theory estimates via integral operators and their approximations. Constructive approximation, 26 0 (2): 0 153--172, 2007

    2007

  50. [58]

    Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging

    Michael L Stein. Interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging. Springer Science & Business Media, 1999

    1999

  51. [59]

    Support vector machines

    Ingo Steinwart and Andreas Christmann. Support vector machines. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008

    2008

  52. [60]

    Optimal rates for regularized least squares regression

    Ingo Steinwart, Don R Hush, Clint Scovel, et al. Optimal rates for regularized least squares regression. In COLT, pages 79--93, 2009

    2009

  53. [61]

    Optimal global rates of convergence for nonparametric regression

    Charles J Stone. Optimal global rates of convergence for nonparametric regression. The annals of statistics, pages 1040--1053, 1982

    1982

  54. [62]

    Transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models

    Ye Tian and Yang Feng. Transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, pages 1--14, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Unsupervised multi-task and transfer learning on gaussian mixture models

    Ye Tian, Haolei Weng, and Yang Feng. Unsupervised multi-task and transfer learning on gaussian mixture models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15224, 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    Learning from similar linear representations: Adaptivity, minimaxity, and robustness

    Ye Tian, Yuqi Gu, and Yang Feng. Learning from similar linear representations: Adaptivity, minimaxity, and robustness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17765, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Pseudo-labeling for kernel ridge regression under covariate shift

    Kaizheng Wang. Pseudo-labeling for kernel ridge regression under covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10160, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gaussian process regression: Optimality, robustness, and relationship with kernel ridge regression

    Wenjia Wang and Bing-Yi Jing. Gaussian process regression: Optimality, robustness, and relationship with kernel ridge regression. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (193): 0 1--67, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Flexible transfer learning under support and model shift

    Xuezhi Wang and Jeff Schneider. Flexible transfer learning under support and model shift. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  60. [68]

    Generalization bounds for transfer learning under model shift

    Xuezhi Wang and Jeff G Schneider. Generalization bounds for transfer learning under model shift. In UAI, pages 922--931, 2015

    2015

  61. [69]

    Nonparametric risk and stability analysis for multi-task learning problems

    Xuezhi Wang, Junier B Oliva, Jeff G Schneider, and Barnab \'a s P \'o czos. Nonparametric risk and stability analysis for multi-task learning problems. In IJCAI, pages 2146--2152, 2016

    2016

  62. [70]

    Scattered data approximation, volume 17

    Holger Wendland. Scattered data approximation, volume 17. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  63. [71]

    How transferable are features in deep neural networks? Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    Jason Yosinski, Jeff Clune, Yoshua Bengio, and Hod Lipson. How transferable are features in deep neural networks? Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  64. [72]

    On the optimality of misspecified spectral algorithms

    Haobo Zhang, Yicheng Li, and Qian Lin. On the optimality of misspecified spectral algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14942, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A class of geometric structures in transfer learning: Minimax bounds and optimality

    Xuhui Zhang, Jose Blanchet, Soumyadip Ghosh, and Mark S Squillante. A class of geometric structures in transfer learning: Minimax bounds and optimality. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 3794--3820. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  66. [74]

    Divide and conquer kernel ridge regression: A distributed algorithm with minimax optimal rates

    Yuchen Zhang, John Duchi, and Martin Wainwright. Divide and conquer kernel ridge regression: A distributed algorithm with minimax optimal rates. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16 0 (1): 0 3299--3340, 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Model-assisted and knowledge-guided transfer regression for the underrepresented population

    Doudou Zhou, Mengyan Li, Tianxi Cai, and Molei Liu. Model-assisted and knowledge-guided transfer regression for the underrepresented population. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06484, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Doubly robust augmented model accuracy transfer inference with high dimensional features

    Doudou Zhou, Molei Liu, Mengyan Li, and Tianxi Cai. Doubly robust augmented model accuracy transfer inference with high dimensional features. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 0 (just-accepted): 0 1--26, 2024 b

    2024

  69. [77]

    A comprehensive survey on transfer learning

    Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhiyuan Qi, Keyu Duan, Dongbo Xi, Yongchun Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. A comprehensive survey on transfer learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109 0 (1): 0 43--76, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.