Convexity, Classification, and Risk Bounds

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.

Neural network learning:theoretical foundations

This important work describes recent theoretical advances in the study of artificial neural networks. It explores probabilistic models of supervised learning problems, and addresses the key statistical and computational questions. Chapters survey research on pattern classification with binary-output networks, including a discussion of the relevance of the Vapnik Chervonenkis dimension, and of estimates of the dimension for several neural network models. In addition, Anthony and Bartlett develop a model of classification by real-output networks, and demonstrate the usefulness of classification with a "large margin." The authors explain the role of scale-sensitive versions of the Vapnik Chervonenkis dimension in large margin classification, and in real prediction. Key chapters also discuss the computational complexity of neural network learning, describing a variety of hardness results, and outlining two efficient, constructive learning algorithms. The book is self-contained and accessible to researchers and graduate students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics

Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods

One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik's support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the bias-variance decomposition.

Empirical minimization

We investigate the behavior of the empirical minimization algorithm using various methods. We first analyze it by comparing the empirical, random, structure and the original one on the class, either in an additive sense, via the uniform law of large numbers, or in a multiplicative sense, using isomorphic coordinate projections. We then show that a direct analysis of the empirical minimization algorithm yields a significantly better bound, and that the estimates we obtain are essentially sharp. The method of proof we use is based on Talagrand’s concentration inequality for empirical processes.

On the optimality of sample-based estimates of the expectation of the empirical minimizer

We study sample-based estimates of the expectation of the function produced by the empirical minimization algorithm. We investigate the extent to which one can estimate the rate of convergence of the empirical minimizer in a data dependent manner. We establish three main results. First, we provide an algorithm that upper bounds the expectation of the empirical minimizer in a completely data-dependent manner. This bound is based on a structural result due to Bartlett and Mendelson, which relates expectations to sample averages. Second, we show that these structural upper bounds can be loose, compared to previous bounds. In particular, we demonstrate a class for which the expectation of the empirical minimizer decreases as O(1/n) for sample size n, although the upper bound based on structural properties is Ω(1). Third, we show that this looseness of the bound is inevitable: we present an example that shows that a sharp bound cannot be universally recovered from empirical data.

Local Rademacher complexities

We propose new bounds on the error of learning algorithms in terms of a data-dependent notion of complexity. The estimates we establish give optimal rates and are based on a local and empirical version of Rademacher averages, in the sense that the Rademacher averages are computed from the data, on a subset of functions with small empirical error. We present some applications to classification and prediction with convex function classes, and with kernel classes in particular.

Comment

The support vector machine (SVM) has played an important role in bringing certain themes to the fore in computationally oriented statistics. However, it is important to place the SVM in context as but one member of a class of closely related algorithms for nonlinear classification. As we discuss, several of the “open problems” identified by the authors have in fact been the subject of a significant literature, a literature that may have been missed because it has been aimed not only at the SVM but at a broader family of algorithms. Keeping the broader class of algorithms in mind also helps to make clear that the SVM involves certain specific algorithmic choices, some of which have favorable consequences and others of which have unfavorable consequences—both in theory and in practice. The broader context helps to clarify the ties of the SVM to the surrounding statistical literature.