The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Convexity, Classification, and Risk Bounds
Abstract
Many of the classification algorithms developed in the machine learning literature, including the support vector machine and boosting, can be viewed as minimum contrast methods that minimize a convex surrogate of the 0–1 loss function. The convexity makes these algorithms computationally efficient. The use of a surrogate, however, has statistical consequences that must be balanced against the computational virtues of convexity. To study these issues, we provide a general quantitative relationship between the risk as assessed using the 0–1 loss and the risk as assessed using any nonnegative surrogate loss function. We show that this relationship gives nontrivial upper bounds on excess risk under the weakest possible condition on the loss function—that it satisfies a pointwise form of Fisher consistency for classification. The relationship is based on a simple variational transformation of the loss function that is easy to compute in many applications. We also present a refined version of this result in the case of low noise, and show that in this case, strictly convex loss functions lead to faster rates of convergence of the risk than would be implied by standard uniform convergence arguments. Finally, we present applications of our results to the estimation of convergence rates in function classes that are scaled convex hulls of a finite-dimensional base class, with a variety of commonly used loss functions.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Boyd, S., & Vandenberghe, L. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804441 · Cited by 56,601
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
An Introduction to Variational Methods for Graphical Models
Jordan, M. I., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T. S., & Saul, L. K. (1999) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007665907178 · Cited by 3,791
Self-citationA Probabilistic Theory of Pattern Recognition
Devroye, L., Györfi, L., & Lugosi, G. (1996) · Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0711-5 · Cited by 3,274
Cited by
Boyd, S., Parikh, N., Chu, E., Peleato, B., & Eckstein, J. (2011) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000016 · Cited by 17,075
Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning
Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2005) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 · Cited by 11,705
Classification in the Presence of Label Noise: A Survey
Frenay, B., & Verleysen, M. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2013.2292894 · Cited by 1,777
Theoretically principled trade-off between robustness and accuracy
Zhang, H., Yu, Y., Jiao, J., Xing, E. P., Ghaoui, L. E., & Jordan, M. I. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.08573 · Cited by 1,560
Self-citationPerspectives on system identification
Ljung, L. (2010) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2009.12.001 · Cited by 707
Metadata
- Authors
- Bartlett, P. L., Jordan, M. I., & McAuliffe, J. D.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 473
- Pages
- 138-156
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W1982032418
- Cited by
- 1,037
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 52.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.