Cited by 3,515Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningMachine Learning and AlgorithmsReinforcement Learning in Robotics

A theory of learning from different domains

Open access
Ben-David, Shai, Blitzer, John, Crammer, Koby, Kulesza, Alex, Pereira, Fernando, Vaughan, Jennifer Wortman·2010·Machine Learning

Abstract

Discriminative learning methods for classification perform well when training and test data are drawn from the same distribution. Often, however, we have plentiful labeled training data from a source domain but wish to learn a classifier which performs well on a target domain with a different distribution and little or no labeled training data. In this work we investigate two questions. First, under what conditions can a classifier trained from source data be expected to perform well on target data? Second, given a small amount of labeled target data, how should we combine it during training with the large amount of labeled source data to achieve the lowest target error at test time? We address the first question by bounding a classifier’s target error in terms of its source error and the divergence between the two domains. We give a classifier-induced divergence measure that can be estimated from finite, unlabeled samples from the domains. Under the assumption that there exists some hypothesis that performs well in both domains, we show that this quantity together with the empirical source error characterize the target error of a source-trained classifier. We answer the second question by bounding the target error of a model which minimizes a convex combination of the empirical source and target errors. Previous theoretical work has considered minimizing just the source error, just the target error, or weighting instances from the two domains equally. We show how to choose the optimal combination of source and target error as a function of the divergence, the sample sizes of both domains, and the complexity of the hypothesis class. The resulting bound generalizes the previously studied cases and is always at least as tight as a bound which considers minimizing only the target error or an equal weighting of source and target errors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10994-009-5152-4

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Spaceborne images have fundamentally different visual properties from computer-generated synthetic images, so CNN performance on synthetic images does not translate to an equal level of performance on spaceborne images encountered during a mission.

    “However, spaceborne images have fundamentally different visual properties compared to computer-generated synthetic images, so CNN performance on synthetic images does not translate to the equal level of performance on spaceborne images encountered during a mission.”

    From Robust multi-task learning and online refinement for spacecraft pose estimation across domain gap (2024) · cites this paper as Ben-David et al., 2010

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 3,515

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bikel, D., Miller, S., Schwartz, R., & Weischedel, R. (1997). Nymble: a high-performance learning name- finder. In: Conference on applied natural language processing.
  2. Das, S., & Chen, M. (2001). Yahoo! for Amazon: extracting market sentiment from stock message boards. In: Proceedings of the Asia pacific finance association annual conference.

Authors
Ben-David, S., Blitzer, J., Crammer, K., Kulesza, A., Pereira, F., & Vaughan, J. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Blitzer, John
Venue
Machine Learning
Published
2009-10-23
Volume
79
Issue
1-2
Pages
151-175
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
OpenAlex
W2104094955
Cited by
3,515
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 386 · 2025: 379 · 2024: 382 · 2023: 417 · 2022: 370 · 2021: 480 · 2020: 421 · 2019: 249 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 26
FWCI
19.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Machine Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0803256, 0428193)
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (NBCHD-03-0010)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
domain adaptation, discriminative learning, domain divergence, unlabeled target data, transfer learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review