![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hello,
I have a question regarding the calculation (4.8) on p.139 in the book. The final hypothesis ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Does anyone have any comments on this? |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I will try to reformulate the construction of Dval in such a way that the independence is patent, and then try to suggest where your confusion may be coming from.
Construction 1 of Dval: Randomly generate D. Randomly partition it into Dtrain (N-K points) and Dval (K points). Learn on Dtrain to obtain ![]() ![]() Construction 2 of Dval: Randomly generate N-K points to form Dtrain. Learn on Dtrain to obtain ![]() ![]() It is patently clear in Construction 2 that we are computing Eout of ![]() Now for where you may be getting subtly confused. It is true that the value of Eval will change based on what specific partition was selected, in part because ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Quote:
__________________
Have faith in probability |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thank you very much for the lucid explanation!
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On the second thought, I am still not seeing the statistical equivalence of the two constructions. The first construction will always produce two disjoint sets
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Admin Edit: Replaced $ with [math] tag in math expressions. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Not a problem. The two constructions generate identically distributed Dtrain and Dval.
The partitioning approach in construction 1 generates data points with disjoint indices. That does not mean that the data points in Dtrain cannot also appear in Dval. (remember that when you generate D, the data points are iid so there can be repetitions.)
__________________
Have faith in probability |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the explanation! I did not realize that we are doing sampling with replacement to construct the training set and the validation set. Now it is clear why the two constructions you gave are equivalent!
The first step of the Calculation 4.8 on p.139 is still not sinking into my brain somehow. It feels like in the first step we pulled out a variable (namely, $\mathcal{D}_{val}$) from under the integral sign and placed it as an indexing set for the summation. What is the correct mathematical interpretation of this step? Thank you for your clear explanations and patience! |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|