Algorithmic Luckiness
Over the last few decades a few frameworks to study the generalisation performance of learning algorithms have been emerged. Among the few, the most remarkable are the VC framework (empirical risk minimisation algorithms), compression framework (on-line algorithms and compression schemes) and the luckiness framework (structural risk minimisation algorithms). However, apart from the compression framework none of the frameworks has considered the generalisation error of the single hypothesis learned by a given learning algorithm but resorted to the more stringent requirement of uniform convergence. The algorithmic luckiness framework is an extension of the powerful luckiness framework which studies the generalisation error of particular learning algorithms relative to some prior knowledge about the target concept encoded via a luckiness function.
- Ralf Herbrich and Robert C. Williamson, Algorithmic Luckiness, in Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 3, pp. 175-212, MIT Press, September 2002
- Ralf Herbrich and Robert C. Williamson, Algorithmic Luckiness, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14, MIT Press, 2002
PAC Bayesian Framework
In the Bayesian framework learning is viewed as an update of prior belief in the target concept in light of the data. The learning algorithms considered in the PAC-Bayesian framework are the Gibbs classifier (or better classification strategy) and the Bayes classifiers. Thus, once a learning algorithm is expressed as an update of a probability distribution such that the Bayes classifier is equivalent to the classifier at hand, the whole (and powerful) machinery of PAC-Bayesian can be applied. We are particularly interested in the study of linear classifiers. A geometrical picture reveals that the margin is only an approximation to the real quantity controlling generalisation error: the volume of consistent classifiers to the whole volume of parameter space. Hence we are able to remove awkward constant as well as permanent complexity terms from known margin bounds. The resulting bound can considered as tight and practically useful for bound based model selection. Further research aims at revealing the limitation of bound based model selection and to extent the analysis to unbounded loss like in regression or unsupervised learning techniques such as clustering, PCA or ICA.
- Thore Graepel, Ralf Herbrich, and John Shawe-Taylor, PAC-Bayesian compression bounds on the prediction error of learning algorithms for classification, in Machine Learning, vol. 59, pp. 55-76, Kluwer Academic , January 2005
- Ralf Herbrich and Thore Graepel, A PAC-Bayesian Margin Bound for Linear Classifiers, in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 3140–3150, January 2002
- Ralf Herbrich and Thore Graepel, A PAC-Bayesian Margin Bound for Linear Classifiers: Why SVMs work, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13, MIT Press, January 2001
Sparsity and Generalisation
It is generally accepted that inferring a function given only a finite amount of data is only possible if one restricts the model of the data (descriptive approach) or the model of the dependencies (predictive approach) respectively. Over the last years sparse models have become very popular in the field of prediction. Sparse models are additive models f(x)=∑αi k(x,xi) - also referred to as kernel models - where at the solution for a finite amount of data only a few αi are unequal to zero. Surprisingly Bayesian schemes (like Gaussian Processes, Ridge Regression) which do not enforce such a sparsity show good generalization behaviour. We look for an explanation of this fact and finally for the usefulness of sparsity in Machine Learning.
- Neil Lawrence, Matthias Seeger, and Ralf Herbrich, Fast Sparse Gaussian Process Methods: The Informative Vector Machine, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15, MIT Press, January 2003
- Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and John Shawe-Taylor, Sparsity vs. Large Margins for Linear Classifiers, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, January 2000
Assessment of Learning Algorithms
In order to rank the performance of machine learning algorithms, many researchers conduct experiments on ceratin benchmark data sets. Most learning algorithms have domain-specific parameters and it is a popular custom to adjust these parameters with respect to minimal error on a holdout set. The error on the same holdout set of samples is then used to rank the algorithm, which causes an optimistic bias. We quantify this bias and show, why, when, and to which extent this inappropriate experimental setting distorts the results.
- Tobias Scheffer and Ralf Herbrich, Unbiased Assessment of Learning Algorithms, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, January 1997
Large Deviation Bounds for Ranking
We study generalization properties of the area under the ROC curve (AUC), a quantity that has been advocated as an evaluation criterion for the bipartite ranking problem. The AUC is a different term than the error rate used for evaluation in classification problems; consequently, existing generalization bounds for the classification error rate cannot be used to draw conclusions about the AUC. In this paper, we define the expected accuracy of a ranking function (analogous to the expected error rate of a classification function), and derive distribution-free probabilistic bounds on the deviation of the empirical AUC of a ranking function (observed on a finite data sequence) from its expected accuracy. We derive both a large deviation bound, which serves to bound the expected accuracy of a ranking function in terms of its empirical AUC on a test sequence, and a uniform convergence bound, which serves to bound the expected accuracy of a learned ranking function in terms of its empirical AUC on a training sequence. Our uniform convergence bound is expressed in terms of a new set of combinatorial parameters that we term the bipartite rank-shatter coefficients; these play the same role in our result as do the standard VC-dimension related shatter coefficients (also known as the growth function) in uniform convergence results for the classification error rate. A comparison of our result with a recent uniform convergence result derived by Freund et al. (2003) for a quantity closely related to the AUC shows that the bound provided by our result can be considerably tighter.
- Shivani Agarwal, Thore Graepel, Ralf Herbrich, Sariel Har-Peled, and Dan Roth, Generalization Error Bounds for the Area Under the ROC curve, in Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 6, pp. 393-425, MIT Press, January 2005
- Shivani Agarwal, Thore Graepel, Ralf Herbrich, and Dan Roth, A Large Deviation Bound for the Area Under the ROC Curve, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17, MIT Press, January 2004
- Simon Hill, Hugo Zaragoza, Ralf Herbrich, and Peter J. Rayner, Average Precision and the Problem of Generalisation, in Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Workshop on Mathematical and Formal Methods in Information Retrieval, January 2002



