LFD Book Forum (http://book.caltech.edu/bookforum/index.php)
-   Chapter 1 - The Learning Problem (http://book.caltech.edu/bookforum/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

 RicLouRiv 06-23-2017 04:42 PM

Re: Problem 1.9

Quick question on Part D...

I agree that s = ln(a / (1-a)) is the value of s that minimizes e^(-sa)U(s), where I'm using "a" to represent "alpha."

I think that, if you plug this value of s in, you get 2^(-b), where I'm using "b" to represent "beta."

So, 2^(-b) < e^(-sa)U(s), by definition of minimization.

Then, raising to the power of N, we get:

2^(-bN) < (e^(-sa)U(s))^N, but this inequality is the wrong way.

Any tips?

 RicLouRiv 06-24-2017 09:36 AM

Re: Problem 1.9

Ah, maybe it's because the inequality holds for any s, it must hold for the min.

 htlin 06-29-2017 10:00 PM

Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicLouRiv (Post 12685) Ah, maybe it's because the inequality holds for any s, it must hold for the min.
You got it. :-)

 mygame182 10-22-2017 04:19 AM

Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RicLouRiv (Post 12685) Ah, maybe it's because the inequality holds for any s, it must hold for the min.
Excuse me, I can understand your last reply, but confuse in this one.

When 2^(-b) is the minimize of e^(-sa)U(s), i find that 1-a = 1/2 + e (e means epsilon), so P[u>=a] = P[u>= 1/2 - e] , but not P[u>=1/2+e].

 mygame182 10-23-2017 08:23 AM

Re: Problem 1.9

When 2^(-b) equal to the minimize of e^(-sa)U(s), i try to assume that 1-a=1/2-e, so that a = 1/2 + e, P[u>=a]=P[u>=1/2+e]

According to (b), P[u>=1/2+e] = P[u>=a] <= (e^(-sa)U(s))^N for any s , even if the minimize of e^(-sa)U(s) when s = ln(a / (1-a)).

Hence P[u>=1/2+e] <= 2^(-bN)

 don slowik 11-14-2017 03:14 PM

Re: Problem 1.9

That's correct. But it doesn't get us anywhere.

 don slowik 11-14-2017 03:18 PM

Re: Problem 1.9

Ahhhm, That was a reply to kongweihan's OP.
It is correct as shown by the first line: Since...
But ends up barking up the wrong tree.
There is a nice description on wikipedia of Chernoff bound.
It is similar to maciekleks path.

 Ulyssesyang 11-09-2018 07:02 PM

Re: Problem 1.9

Quote:
 Originally Posted by svend (Post 12434) Here's my take on Problem 1.9, part(b), which is following the same lines as the description of MaciekLeks above. We have: Since is monotonically increasing in t. Also, is non negative for all t, implying Markov inequality holds: The last line being true since [math]x_n[\math] are independent. From there it directly follows that
I just think you should note that there are two expectations, one is based on e^su_n, while other is based on u_n. Of course, you can refer the law of unconscious statisticians to prove that both are same.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:10 PM.