Past exam of the computer science course of the University of Oxford / 2015 / Computational learning theory / 3

The two-interval approximation by one interval supplies an approximation guarantee for every input probability distribution $D$. Merge overlapping target intervals, and write the target positive set as at most two disjoint ordered intervals $I_1,I_2$. Put $p_j=D(I_j)$ and $p=p_1+p_2$. If there is only one nonempty component, the target already belongs to the interval hypothesis class and has zero misclassification risk. If the interval notation permits empty intervals and the target is empty, choose that same empty interval in $H$.

In the two-component case, choosing the heavier component as the hypothesis loses only the lighter component, so its misclassification risk isAlternatively, choose the single interval $J$ spanning both components. This produces no false negatives, and its false positives lie in the gap. Its misclassification risk is at most $1-p$. Both candidates are in $H$, so there exists an interval $h^{\ast }$ withFor the last step, use $p/2\le 1/3$ if $p\le 2/3$, and $1-p\le 1/3$ if $p\ge 2/3$. This avoids any assumption that an empty interval or the whole real line belongs to $H$.

Use empirical risk minimization over intervals on independent labelled examples. The generalization result needed here is the VC uniform convergence theorem: for a binary hypothesis class of finite VC dimension $v$, there is a universal constant $A$ such that, for any labelled-data probability distribution and $0<\eta ,\delta <1$, a sample sizeensures, with probability at least $1-\delta$, that every hypothesis's empirical misclassification risk differs from its misclassification risk by at most $\eta$. This theorem does not require the labels to be realizable by the hypothesis class.^[ref]

The interval hypothesis class has VC dimension two: any two ordered points can receive all four labellings, whereas an interval cannot label three ordered points $1,0,1$. Take $\eta =1/24$ and choose an interval $\hat{h}$ minimizing the empirical misclassification risk. On the simultaneous convergence event,ThereforeSince $v$ and $\eta$ are fixed constants, $O(1+\log (1/\delta ))$ examples suffice, which is polynomial in $1/\delta$ as required by the paper's definition of weak PAC learning.

For completeness, empirical risk minimization over intervals is computationally effective. Sort the sample and group equal coordinates, since one interval cannot split identical inputs. Give each group weight equal to the number of positive labels minus the number of negative labels in that group. The number of empirical mistakes made by an interval is the total number of positives minus the total weight of the consecutive groups it contains. Select the consecutive block of maximum weight, or select a finite interval outside the sample if every nonempty block has negative weight. This enumerates all possible sample labellings by intervals and attains the minimum empirical misclassification risk; sorting and a maximum-block scan are sufficient. The time complexity is $O(m\log m)$.

Use weighted decision stump optimization with the convention $\mathrm{sign}(0)=+1$, and write $w_j=D((x_j,y_j))$. For each coordinate $i$, sort the examples by their $i$th coordinate and group all equal coordinate values. For a threshold between the $k$th and $(k+1)$st distinct values, the decision stump predicts $-1$ on the left and $+1$ on the right. Its weighted misclassification risk isStart with a threshold below the minimum observed value. Every prediction is then $+1$, and the initial error is ${\sum }_{y_j=-1}{w}_j$. Sweep the threshold from left to right. When it passes an entire group $G$ of equal coordinate values, that group's prediction changes from $+1$ to $-1$, so updateRecord the smallest value and a threshold achieving it, including the final threshold above all observations, which predicts $-1$ everywhere on the sample. Representatives can be chosen strictly between successive distinct values; the two outer representatives are finite real numbers below the minimum and above the maximum.

Every threshold has exactly the same sample predictions as one of these representatives. In particular, if a threshold equals an observed value, the equality group is on the $+1$ side under the chosen sign function convention, which duplicates the representative immediately before that group. Thus the sweep includes every possible sample labelling by the stated decision stump. Repeating for all $n$ coordinates and returning the globally smallest error proves optimality.

Sorting costs $O(m\log m)$ per coordinate and the grouped sweep costs $O(m)$. The overall time complexity iswith $O(m)$ working storage when coordinates are processed one at a time. Pre-sorted coordinate orders can be reused across repeated AdaBoost rounds, leaving $O(nm)$ work per round for changing weights. The paper allows only the orientation $\mathrm{sign}(x_i-b)$; reversing its polarity would enlarge the hypothesis class and is unnecessary here.

Write $\epsilon ={\epsilon }_t$, $\alpha ={\alpha }_t$, and $s_i=y_i{h}_t(x_i)\in \{-1,1\}$. Correctly classified observations have $s_i=1$ and total $D_t$-weight $1-\epsilon$; incorrectly classified observations have $s_i=-1$ and total weight $\epsilon$. The normalizing constant in the AdaBoost update is thereforeFor $0<\epsilon <1$, the definition of $\alpha$ givesIf observation $i$ is correct, its multiplier in the normalized update isif it is incorrect, the multiplier isThe corresponding denominators are exactly $1+s_i(1-2\epsilon )$: they are $2(1-\epsilon )$ when $s_i=1$ and $2\epsilon$ when $s_i=-1$. ConsequentlyAs a check, the new total mass on correctly classified observations is $(1-\epsilon )/(2(1-\epsilon ))=1/2$, and the mass on incorrectly classified observations is $\epsilon /(2\epsilon )=1/2$. The update thus produces a probability distribution and assigns the two groups equal aggregate mass. When $\epsilon =1/2$, $\alpha =0$ and every individual weight is unchanged.

The displayed finite update assumes $0<{\epsilon }_t<1$. The usual weak learner guarantees ${\epsilon }_t<1/2$, but it can return a perfect classifier with ${\epsilon }_t=0$; then the logarithm is infinite and the normalized exponential formula is not defined. AdaBoost stops on that perfect hypothesis rather than executing this update. Similarly, the printed formula is not an ordinary finite update at ${\epsilon }_t=1$.