Paper detail

Optimal Posteriors for Chi-squared Divergence based PAC-Bayesian Bounds and Comparison with KL-divergence based Optimal Posteriors and Cross-Validation Procedure

We investigate optimal posteriors for recently introduced \cite{begin2016pac} chi-squared divergence based PAC-Bayesian bounds in terms of nature of their distribution, scalability of computations, and test set performance. For a finite classifier set, we deduce bounds for three distance functions: KL-divergence, linear and squared distances. Optimal posterior weights are proportional to deviations of empirical risks, usually with subset support. For uniform prior, it is sufficient to search among posteriors on classifier subsets ordered by these risks. We show the bound minimization for linear distance as a convex program and obtain a closed-form expression for its optimal posterior. Whereas that for squared distance is a quasi-convex program under a specific condition, and the one for KL-divergence is non-convex optimization (a difference of convex functions). To compute such optimal posteriors, we derive fast converging fixed point (FP) equations. We apply these approaches to a finite set of SVM regularization parameter values to yield stochastic SVMs with tight bounds. We perform a comprehensive performance comparison between our optimal posteriors and known KL-divergence based posteriors on a variety of UCI datasets with varying ranges and variances in risk values, etc. Chi-squared divergence based posteriors have weaker bounds and worse test errors, hinting at an underlying regularization by KL-divergence based posteriors. Our study highlights the impact of divergence function on the performance of PAC-Bayesian classifiers. We compare our stochastic classifiers with cross-validation based deterministic classifier. The latter has better test errors, but ours is more sample robust, has quantifiable generalization guarantees, and is computationally much faster.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.