REVIEW 1 cited by
Generalization and Robustness of the Tilted Empirical Risk
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
abstract
The generalization error (risk) of a supervised statistical learning algorithm quantifies its prediction ability on previously unseen data. Inspired by exponential tilting, \citet{li2020tilted} proposed the {\it tilted empirical risk} (TER) as a non-linear risk metric for machine learning applications such as classification and regression problems. In this work, we examine the generalization error of the tilted empirical risk in the robustness regime under \textit{negative tilt}. Our first contribution is to provide uniform and information-theoretic bounds on the {\it tilted generalization error}, defined as the difference between the population risk and the tilted empirical risk, under negative tilt for unbounded loss function under bounded $(1+\epsilon)$-th moment of loss function for some $\epsilon\in(0,1]$ with a convergence rate of $O(n^{-\epsilon/(1+\epsilon)})$ where $n$ is the number of training samples, revealing a novel application for TER under no distribution shift. Secondly, we study the robustness of the tilted empirical risk with respect to noisy outliers at training time and provide theoretical guarantees under distribution shift for the tilted empirical risk. We empirically corroborate our findings in simple experimental setups where we evaluate our bounds to select the value of tilt in a data-driven manner.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Quantum Learning with Tunable Loss Functions
Proposes QTERM for quantum process learning, but the proof rests on an incorrect equality E[e^{γY}] = e^{γE[Y]} for measurement bits, invalidating the sample complexity and PAC claims.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.