arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 1104.0235

Gaussian Robust Classification

Abstract

Supervised learning is all about the ability to generalize knowledge. Specifically, the goal of the learning is to train a classifier using training data, in such a way that it will be capable of classifying new unseen data correctly. In order to acheive this goal, it is important to carefully design the learner, so it will not overfit the training data. The later can is done usually by adding a regularization term. The statistical learning theory explains the success of this method by claiming that it restricts the complexity of the learned model. This explanation, however, is rather abstract and does not have a geometric intuition. The generalization error of a classifier may be thought of as correlated with its robustness to perturbations of the data: a classifier that copes with disturbance is expected to generalize well. Indeed, Xu et al. [2009] have shown that the SVM formulation is equivalent to a robust optimization (RO) formulation, in which an adversary displaces the training and testing points within a ball of pre-determined radius. In this work we explore a different kind of robustness, namely changing each data point with a Gaussian cloud centered at the sample. Loss is evaluated as the expectation of an underlying loss function on the cloud. This setup fits the fact that in many applications, the data is sampled along with noise. We develop an RO framework, in which the adversary chooses the covariance of the noise. In our algorithm named GURU, the tuning parameter is a spectral bound on the noise, thus it can be estimated using physical or applicative considerations. Our experiments show that this framework performs as well as SVM and even slightly better in some cases. Generalizations for Mercer kernels and for the multiclass case are presented as well. We also show that our framework may be further generalized, using the technique of convex perspective functions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ido Ginodi, Amir Globerson. 2011-04-01. Gaussian Robust Classification. https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0235

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG