LFD Book Forum  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-11-2021, 07:02 PM
ckong41 ckong41 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 2
Default Re: Exercise 1.13 noisy targets

Quote:
Originally Posted by prithagupta.nsit View Post
SO final Probability of error that h makes in approximating y would be:
1+2*lamda*mu -mu -lamda.
Anyone know how this user arrived at this step?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-12-2021, 09:21 PM
htlin's Avatar
htlin htlin is offline
NTU
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Posts: 610
Default Re: Exercise 1.13 noisy targets

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckong41 View Post
Anyone know how this user arrived at this step?
I think it can be derived by calculating (1-mu) * (1-lambda)+mu * lambda . Hope this helps.
__________________
When one teaches, two learn.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-30-2021, 08:18 AM
anon4 anon4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 2
Default Re: Exercise 1.13 noisy targets

I don't understand why the case y != f(x) and h(x) != f(x) doesn't count toward the probability that y != h(x). We have four cases:
(1) y = f(x) and h(x) = f(x) imply y = h(x);
(2) y != f(x) and h(x) = f(x) imply y != h(x);
(3) y = f(x) and h(x) != f(x) imply y != h(x);
(4) y != f(x) and h(x) != f(x) imply neither y = h(x) or y != h(x).
For instance if at x = 0 we had y = 1, h(0) = 2 and f(0) = 3, then we are in case (4) and y != h(x). But if at x = 1 we had y = 4, h(1) = 4 and f(1) = 5, then we are in case (4) and y = h(x). What am I missing?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-31-2021, 12:15 PM
htlin's Avatar
htlin htlin is offline
NTU
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Posts: 610
Default Re: Exercise 1.13 noisy targets

Quote:
Originally Posted by anon4 View Post
I don't understand why the case y != f(x) and h(x) != f(x) doesn't count toward the probability that y != h(x). We have four cases:
(1) y = f(x) and h(x) = f(x) imply y = h(x);
(2) y != f(x) and h(x) = f(x) imply y != h(x);
(3) y = f(x) and h(x) != f(x) imply y != h(x);
(4) y != f(x) and h(x) != f(x) imply neither y = h(x) or y != h(x).
For instance if at x = 0 we had y = 1, h(0) = 2 and f(0) = 3, then we are in case (4) and y != h(x). But if at x = 1 we had y = 4, h(1) = 4 and f(1) = 5, then we are in case (4) and y = h(x). What am I missing?
This case is about binary classification, where all the outputs are +/- 1. So your cae (4) actually implies that y = h(x). Hope this helps.
__________________
When one teaches, two learn.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-31-2021, 07:47 PM
anon4 anon4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 2
Default Re: Exercise 1.13 noisy targets

Yes, it makes much more sense now hahaha
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.