LFD Book Forum  

Go Back   LFD Book Forum > Book Feedback - Learning From Data > Chapter 1 - The Learning Problem

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-18-2015, 10:26 PM
henry2015 henry2015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Default Hoeffding Inequality

Hi,

On page 22, it says, "the hypothesis h is fixed before you generate the data set, and the
probability is with respect to random data sets D; we emphasize that the assumption "h is fixed before you generate the data set" is critical to the validity of this bound".

Few questions:
1. Does the "data set" in "generate the data set" refer to the marble (which is the data set D) we pick randomly from the jar? Or it refers to the set of outputs (red/green) of h(x) on D?
2. It keeps mentioning "h is fixed before you generate the data set". Does it mean in machine learning, a set of h should be predefined before seeing any training data and no h can be added to the set after seeing the training data?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-18-2015, 10:38 PM
yaser's Avatar
yaser yaser is offline
Caltech
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pasadena, California, USA
Posts: 1,477
Default Re: Hoeffding Inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by henry2015 View Post
1. Does the "data set" in "generate the data set" refer to the marble (which is the data set D) we pick randomly from the jar? Or it refers to the set of outputs (red/green) of h(x) on D?
The target f is assumed to be fixed, so since h is also fixed, the colors of all marbles are fixed and picking the data set would mean picking the marbles in the sample.

Quote:
2. It keeps mentioning "h is fixed before you generate the data set". Does it mean in machine learning, a set of h should be predefined before seeing any training data and no h can be added to the set after seeing the training data?
This is the assumption that the theory is based on. If one wants to add hypotheses after seeing the data and still apply the theory, one should take the set of hypotheses to include all potential hypotheses that may be added (whatever the data set may be).
__________________
Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-18-2015, 11:36 PM
henry2015 henry2015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Default Re: Hoeffding Inequality

Thanks for your quick reply Professor!

Now, I wonder why "we cannot just plug in g for h in the Hoeffding inequality". Given g is one of h's and for each h, Hoeffding inequality is valid for the upper bound of P[|Ein(h) - Eout(h)| > E]. Even g is picked after we look at all the outputs of all h's, g is still one of h's. So Hoeffding inequality should be still valid for g. No?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-19-2015, 02:56 AM
yaser's Avatar
yaser yaser is offline
Caltech
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pasadena, California, USA
Posts: 1,477
Default Re: Hoeffding Inequality

Quote:
Originally Posted by henry2015 View Post
Thanks for your quick reply Professor!

Now, I wonder why "we cannot just plug in g for h in the Hoeffding inequality". Given g is one of h's and for each h, Hoeffding inequality is valid for the upper bound of P[|Ein(h) - Eout(h)| > E]. Even g is picked after we look at all the outputs of all h's, g is still one of h's. So Hoeffding inequality should be still valid for g. No?

Thanks!
This is the main point of this part. Take the coin flipping example, with each of 1000 fair coins flipped 10 times. Hoeffding applies to each coin, right? Now if we pick "g" to be the coin that produced the most heads, we lose the Hoeffding guarantee because the small probability of bad behavior for each coin accumulates into a not-so-small probability of bad behavior of some coin (which we picked deliberately because it behaved badly).
__________________
Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-01-2015, 04:22 AM
henry2015 henry2015 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 31
Default Re: Hoeffding Inequality

Hi Professor,

I just have a hard time to understand that how choosing a hypothesis changes a theory -- Hoeffding inequality.

Let's say h1(x) < P1, h2(x) < P2. We choose h2 to be g. Then h2(x) < P2 is no longer true?

I sort of understand your example because we pick the run of coin flipping that produces most heads, and so if we plot the graph, the graph indicates that Hoeffding inequality doesn't apply. But Hoeffding inequality is talking about probability and so the reality might be off a bit.

Maybe I am in a wrong direction?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-01-2015, 09:38 PM
yaser's Avatar
yaser yaser is offline
Caltech
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pasadena, California, USA
Posts: 1,477
Default Re: Hoeffding Inequality

It's a subtle point. There is "cherry picking" if we fish for a sample that has certain properties after many trials, instead of having a sample that is fairly drawn from a fixed hypothesis.

Statements involving probability are tricky because they don't guarantee a particular outcome, just the likelihood of getting that outcome. Therefore, changing the game to allow more trials or different conditions would change the probabilities.
__________________
Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fixed hypothesis, hoeffding inequality

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
The contents of this forum are to be used ONLY by readers of the Learning From Data book by Yaser S. Abu-Mostafa, Malik Magdon-Ismail, and Hsuan-Tien Lin, and participants in the Learning From Data MOOC by Yaser S. Abu-Mostafa. No part of these contents is to be communicated or made accessible to ANY other person or entity.