Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Empirical Hypothesis Space Reduction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1909.01576 v1 pith:2PHUOCWJ submitted 2019-09-04 cs.LG stat.ML

Empirical Hypothesis Space Reduction

classification cs.LG stat.ML
keywords hypothesisspaceconvergenceempiricalerrorgeneralizationregularizationcoefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Selecting appropriate regularization coefficients is critical to performance with respect to regularized empirical risk minimization problems. Existing theoretical approaches attempt to determine the coefficients in order for regularized empirical objectives to be upper-bounds of true objectives, uniformly over a hypothesis space. Such an approach is, however, known to be over-conservative, especially in high-dimensional settings with large hypothesis space. In fact, an existing generalization error bound in variance-based regularization is $O(\sqrt{d \log n/n})$, where $d$ is the dimension of hypothesis space, and thus the number of samples required for convergence linearly increases with respect to $d$. This paper proposes an algorithm that calculates regularization coefficient, one which results in faster convergence of generalization error $O(\sqrt{\log n/n})$ and whose leading term is independent of the dimension $d$. This faster convergence without dependence on the size of the hypothesis space is achieved by means of empirical hypothesis space reduction, which, with high probability, successfully reduces a hypothesis space without losing the true optimum solution. Calculation of uniform upper bounds over reduced spaces, then, enables acceleration of the convergence of generalization error.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.