\documentclass[twoside,11pt]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{jmlr2e}
\usepackage{natbib}

\newcommand{\noun}[1]{\textsc{#1}}
\newcommand{\binom}[2]{\left( \begin{array}{c} #1 \\ #2\end{array} \right)}
\providecommand{\tabularnewline}{\\}

\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{defn}[thm]{Definition}
\newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary} %%Delete [thm] to re-start numbering
\newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma} %%Delete [thm] to re-start numbering

\jmlrheading{6}{2005}{211--244}{10/02; Revised 11/04}{2/05}{John Langford}

\ShortHeadings{Practical Prediction Theory for Classification}{Langford}

\firstpageno{211}
\begin{document}

\title{Tutorial on Practical Prediction Theory for Classification}


\author{\name John Langford \email jl@hunch.net \\
  \addr Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago \\
  1427 East 60th Street \\
  Chicago, IL 60637, USA
}

\editor{Robert Schapire}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
We discuss basic prediction theory and its impact on classification
success evaluation, implications for learning algorithm design, and
uses in learning algorithm execution. This tutorial is meant to be
a comprehensive compilation of results which are both theoretically
rigorous and quantitatively useful. 

There are two important implications of the results presented
here. The first is that common practices for reporting results in
classification should change to use the test set bound. The second is
that train set bounds can sometimes be used to directly motivate
learning algorithms.
\end{abstract}

\begin{keywords}
  sample complexity bounds, classification, quantitative bounds
\end{keywords}

\section{Introduction}

Classifiers are functions which partition a set into two classes (for
example, the set of rainy days and the set of sunny days). Classifiers
appear to be the most simple nontrivial decision making element so
their study often has implications for other learning systems. Classifiers
are sufficiently complex that many phenomena observed in machine learning
(theoretically or experimentally) can be observed in the classification
setting. Yet, classifiers are simple enough to make their analysis
easy to understand. This combination of sufficient yet minimal complexity
for capturing phenomena makes the study of classifiers especially
fruitful. 

The goal of this paper is an introduction to the theory of prediction
for classification. Here {}``prediction theory'' means statements
about the future error rate of learned classifiers. A typical statement
has the form, {}``With probability $1-\delta$ over an i.i.d. draw
of some sample, the expected future error rate of a classifier is
bounded by $f(\delta,\textrm{error rate on sample})$''. These statements
are confidence intervals on the error rate of a learned classifier.
Many of these results have been presented elsewhere, although the
style, tightness, and generality of the presentation are often new
here (and particularly oriented towards practical use). The focus
of this tutorial is on those results which are both theoretically
sound and practically useful. 

There are several important aspects of learning which the theory here
casts light on. Perhaps the most important of these is the problem
of performance reporting for classifiers. Many people use some form
of empirical variance to estimate upper and lower bounds. This is
an error-prone practice, and the test set bound in Section \ref{sec-test}
implies a better method by nearly any metric. Hopefully, this will
become common practice. 

After discussing the test set bound we cover the Occam's Razor bound,
the simplest train set bound, which explains (and quantifies) the
common phenomenon of overfitting. We also prove that the Occam's Razor
bound cannot be improved without incorporating extra information and
apply the bound to decision trees. 

Next, we discuss two train set bounds, the PAC-Bayes bound and the
Sample Compression bound, which have proved to give practical results
for more general classifiers, such as Support Vector Machines and
Neural Networks.
All of the results here should be easily approachable and understandable.
The proofs are simple, and examples are given. Pointers to related
work are also given. 

There are some caveats about the scope of this document.

\begin{enumerate}
\item All of the results presented here fall in the realm of classical statistics.
In particular, all randomizations are over draws of the data, and
our results have the form of confidence intervals. 
\item This tutorial is \emph{not} comprehensive for prediction theory in
general (which would be extremely difficult due to the scope of the
subject). We only focus on those results yielding quantifiably interesting
performance. 
\item In particular, other nonquantitative uses of bounds (such as providing
indirect motivations for learning algorithms via constant fitting)
do exist. We do not focus on those uses here.
\end{enumerate}
The layout of this document is as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item Section \ref{sec-formal} presents the formal model.
\item Section \ref{sec-test} presents the test set bound.
\item Section \ref{sec-train} presents the Occam's Razor bound.
\item Section \ref{sec:PAC-Bayes-Bound} presents the PAC-Bayes bound.
\item Section \ref{sec:Sparsity-Bound} presents the Sample Compression
bound.
\end{itemize}
The formal model and test set bound must be understood in order to
appreciate all later results. There is no particular dependency between
the various train set bounds we present.


\section{Formal Model}

\label{sec-formal}

There are many somewhat arbitrary choices of learning model. The one
we use can (at best) be motivated by its simplicity. Other models
such as the online learning model \citep{Online}, PAC learning \citep{Valiant},
and the uniform convergence model \citep{Vapnik} differ in formulation,
generality, and in the scope of addressable questions. The strongest
motivation for studying the prediction theory model here is simplicity
and corresponding generality of results. The appendix discusses the
connections between various models.


\subsection{Basic quantities}

We are concerned with a learning model in which examples of (input,
output) pairs come independently from some unknown distribution (similar
to \citep{SBWA} and many other papers). The goal is to find a function
capable of predicting the output given the input. There are several
mathematical objects we work with.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline 
Object&
Description\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline 
$X$&
The (arbitrary) space of the input to a classifier\tabularnewline
\hline 
$Y=\{-1,1\}$&
The output of a classification.\tabularnewline
\hline 
$D$&
An (unknown) distribution over $X\times Y$\tabularnewline
\hline 
$S$&
A sequence of examples drawn independently from $D$.\tabularnewline
\hline 
$m$&
$=|S|$ the number of examples\tabularnewline
\hline 
$c$&
A function mapping $X$ to $Y$\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\end{center}
\vspace{0.3cm}

There are several distinctions between this model and other (perhaps
more familiar) models. There is no mention of a classifier space,
because the results do not depend upon a classifier space. Also, the
notion of a distribution on $X\times Y$ is strictly more general
than the {}``target concept'' model which assumes that there exists
some function $f:X\rightarrow Y$ used to generate the label \citep{Valiant}.
In particular we can model noisy learning problems which do not have
a particular $Y$ value for each $X$ value. This generalization is
essentially {}``free'' in the sense that it does not add to the
complexity of presenting the results.

It is worth noting that the \emph{only} unverifiable assumption we
make is that examples are drawn independently from $D$. The strength
of all the results which follow rests upon the correctness of this
assumption. 

Sometimes, we decorate these objects with labels like $S_{\textrm{train}}$
(a train set%
\footnote{Throughout this tutorial we use the word 'set' when 'sequence' is
what is actually meant. This usage pattern is historical.%
}) or $S_{\textrm{test}}$ (a test set). These decorations should always
be clear. 

\begin{example}
Weather prediction: Will it rain today or not? In this case $X=$
barometric pressure, observations of cloud cover or other sensory
input and $Y=0$ if the prediction is {}``no rain'' and $1$ otherwise.
The distribution $D$ is over sensory inputs and outcomes. The sample
set $S$, might consist of $m=100$ (observation, outcome) pairs such
as (pressure low, cloudy, rain), (pressure high, cloudy, not rain),
etc. A classifier, $c$, is any function which predicts {}``rain''
or {}``not rain'' based upon the observation.

Note that the independence assumption here is not perfectly satisfied
although it seems to be a reasonable approximation for well-separated
days. In any application of this theory, it must be carefully judged
whether the independence assumption holds or not. 
\end{example}

\subsection{Derived quantities}

There are several derived quantities which the results are stated
in terms of. 

\begin{defn}
(True Error) The true error $c_{D}$ of a classifier $c$ is defined
as the probability that the classifier errs:\[
c_{D}\equiv\Pr_{(x,y)\sim D}(c(x)\neq y)\]
under draws from the distribution $D$.
\end{defn}
The true error is sometimes called the {}``generalization error''.
Unfortunately, the true error is not an observable quantity in our
model because the distribution $D$ is unknown. However, there is
a related quantity which is observable. 

\begin{defn}
(Empirical Error) Given a sample set $S$, the \emph{empirical error},
$\hat{c}_{S}$ is the observed number of errors:\[
\hat{c}_{S}\equiv m\Pr_{(x,y)\sim S}(c(x)\neq y)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}I(c(x_{i})\neq y_{i})\]
 where $I()$ is a function which maps {}``true'' to $1$ and {}``false''
to $0$. Also, $\Pr_{(x,y)\sim S}(...)$ is a probability taken with
respect to the uniform distribution over the set of examples, $S$.
\end{defn}
The empirical error is sometimes called the {}``training error'',
{}``test error'', or {}``observed error'' depending on whether
it is the error on a training set, test set, or a more general set.

\begin{example}
(continued) The classifier $c$ which always predicts {}``not rain''
might have an empirical error of $38$ out of $100$ examples and
an unknown true error rate (which might in fact be $0.5$). 
\end{example}

\subsection{Addressable questions}

Given the true error $c_{D}$ of a classifier $c$ we can precisely
describe the distribution of success and failure on future examples
drawn according to $D$. This quantity is derived from the unknown
distribution $D$, so our effort is directed toward upper and lower
bounding the value of $c_{D}$ for a classifier $c$. 

The variations in all of the bounds that we present are related to
the method of choosing a classifier $c$. We cover two types of bounds:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Test: Use examples in a test set which were not used in picking $c$. 
\item Train: Use examples for both choosing $c$ and evaluating $c$. 
\end{enumerate}
These methods are addressed in the next two sections.

It is worth noting that one question that \emph{cannot} be addressed
in this model is {}``Can learning occur for my problem?'' Extra
assumptions \citep{Valiant} \citep{Vapnik} are inherently
necessary. 


\section{The Test Set Method}

\label{sec-test}

The simplest bound arises for the classical technique of using $m$
fresh examples to evaluate a classifier. In a statistical setting,
this can be viewed as computing a confidence interval for the binomial
distribution as in \citep{CnP}. This section is organized into two
subsections:

\begin{itemize}
\item Subsection \ref{subsec-test-bound} presents the basic upper bound
on the true error rate, handy approximations, and a lower bound.
\item Subsection \ref{subsec-test-implication} discusses the implications
of the test set bound on error reporting practice. A better method
for error reporting is applied to several datasets and the results
are shown.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{The Bound}

\label{subsec-test-bound}

Before stating the bound, we note a few basic observations which make
the results less surprising.%
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[%
  angle=270]{single_binomial.ps}\end{center}


\caption{\label{fig-binom} A depiction of the Binomial distribution. The
cumulative of the Binomial is the area under the curve up to some
point on the horizontal axis.}
\end{figure}
The principal observable quantity is the empirical error $\hat{c}_{S}$
of a classifier. What is the distribution of the empirical error for
a fixed classifier? For each example, our independence assumption
implies the probability that the classifier makes an error is given
by the true error, $c_{D}$. This can be modeled by a biased coin
flip: heads if you are right and tails if you are wrong. 

What is the probability of observing $k$ errors (heads) out of $m$
examples (coin flips)? This is a very familiar distribution in statistics
called the Binomial and so it should not be surprising that the bounds
presented here are fundamentally dependent upon the cumulative distribution
of a Binomial. For the following definition $\mathcal{{B}}(p)$ is
the distribution of a Bernoulli coin flip. 

\begin{defn}
(Binomial Tail Distribution) \[
\textrm{Bin}\left(m,k,c_{D}\right)\equiv\Pr_{Z_{1},...Z_{m}\sim\mathcal{{B}}(c_{D})^{m}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}Z_{i}\leq k\right)=\sum_{j=0}^{k}\binom{m}{j}c_{D}^{j}(1-c_{D})^{m-j}\]
= the probability that $m$ examples (coins) with error rate (bias)
$c_{D}$ produce $k$ or fewer errors (heads).

A depiction of the Binomial distribution is given in Figure \ref{fig-binom}.
\end{defn}
For the learning problem, we always choose a bias of $c_{D}$ and
$Z_{i}=1$ when the classifier commits an error (and $0$ otherwise). With these definitions,
we can interpret the Binomial tail as the probability of an empirical
error less than or equal to $k$. 

Since we are interested in calculating a bound on the true error given
a confidence $\delta$, and an empirical error $\hat{c}_{S}$, it
is handy to define the inversion of a Binomial tail.

\begin{defn}
(Binomial Tail Inversion) \[
\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\delta\right)\equiv\max_{p}\left\{ p:\,\,\textrm{Bin}\left(m,k,p\right)\geq\delta\right\} \]
= the largest true error such that the probability of observing $k$
or fewer {}``heads'' is at least $\delta$.
\end{defn}
For intuition's sake, the quantity $\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\delta\right)$
obeys the following inequalities (some of which we prove later).

\begin{enumerate}
\item $\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\delta\right)\leq\frac{k}{m}+\sqrt{\frac{\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{2m}}$
\item $\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\delta\right)\leq\frac{k}{m}+\sqrt{\frac{2\frac{k}{m}\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{m}}+\frac{2\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{m}$
\item $\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,0,\delta\right)\leq\frac{\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{m}$
\end{enumerate}
With these definitions finished, the results are all very simple statements. 

\begin{thm}
\label{th-hb}(Test Set Bound) For all $D$, for all classifiers $c$,
for all $\delta\in(0,1]$\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}\leq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta\right)\right)\geq1-\delta\]

\end{thm}
Note that $m$ in this equation is $m_{\textrm{test}}=|S_{\textrm{test}}|$,
the size of the test set. 

\begin{proof}
(pictorially in \ref{fig-proof}) The proof is just a simple identification
with the Binomial. For any distribution over $(x,y)$ pairs and any
classifier $c$, there exists some probability $c_{D}$ that the classifier
predicts incorrectly. We can regard this event as a coin flip with
bias $c_{D}$. Since each example is picked independently, the distribution
of the empirical error is a Binomial distribution. 

Whatever our true error $c_{D}$ is, with probability $1-\delta$
the observation $\hat{c}_{S}$ will not fall into a tail of size $\delta$.
Assuming (correctly with probability $1-\delta$) that the empirical
error is not in the Binomial tail, we can constrain (and therefore
bound) the value of the true error $c_{D}$. 
\end{proof}
%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  width=0.35\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{binomials.ps}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.35\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{cut_binomials.ps}

\includegraphics[%
  width=0.35\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{consistent_cut_binomials.ps}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.35\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{worst_cut.ps}


\caption{\label{fig-proof} A graphical depiction of the test set bound. The
first graph depicts several possible Binomials given their true error
rates. The second depicts several Binomials, each with a tail cut.
The third figure shows the Binomials consistent with the tail cut
and observed test error. The worst case over all true error rates
is the consistent Binomial with the largest bias. }
\end{figure}
 

The test set bound is, essentially, perfectly tight. For any classifier
with a sufficiently large true error, the bound is violated exactly
a $\delta$ portion of the time. 


\subsubsection{Approximations}

\label{sub:Corollaries}

There are several immediate corollaries of the test set bound (\ref{th-hb})
which are more convenient when a computer is not handy. The first
corollary applies to the limited {}``realizable'' setting where
you happen to observe $0$ test errors.

\begin{cor}
(Realizable Test Set Bound) For all $D$, For all classifiers $c$,
for all $\delta\in(0,1]$\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=0\Rightarrow c_{D}\leq\frac{\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{m}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Specializing the test set bound (Theorem \ref{th-hb}) to the zero
empirical error case, we get:\[
\textrm{Bin}\left(m,0,\epsilon\right)=(1-\epsilon)^{m}\leq e^{-\epsilon m}.\]
Setting this equal to $\delta$ and solving for $\epsilon$ gives
us the result. The last inequality can be most simply motivated by
comparing graphs as in figure \ref{fig:graphs}. %
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  angle=270]{exp.ps}


\caption{\label{fig:graphs} A graph suggesting $e^{-\epsilon m}\geq(1-\epsilon)^{m}$.}
\end{figure}

\end{proof}
Approximations which hold for arbitrary (nonzero) error rates rely
upon the Chernoff bound which we state next, for completeness. For
this bound (and it's later applications) we overload the definition
of KL-divergence so it applies to two $p,q\in[0,1]$ variables. 

\begin{defn}
(KL-divergence overload) $\textrm{KL}_{+}\left(q||p\right)=q\log\frac{q}{p}+\left(1-q\right)\log\frac{1-q}{1-p}$
for $p>q$ and $0$ otherwise.
\end{defn}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Relative-Entropy-Chernoff}(Relative Entropy Chernoff Bound)%
\footnote{The closely related Hoeffding bound\citep{Hoeffding} makes the same
statement for sums of $[0,1]$ random variables.%
} For $\frac{k}{m}<p$: \[
\textrm{Bin}\left(m,k,p\right)\leq e^{-m\textrm{KL}_{+}\left(\frac{k}{m}||p\right)}.\]

\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(Originally from \citep{chernoff}. The proof here is based on \citep{Seung})
For all $\lambda>0$, we have: \[
\textrm{Bin}\left(m,k,p\right)=\Pr_{X^{m}\sim p^{m}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}X_{i}\leq k\right)=\Pr_{X^{m}\sim p^{m}}\left(e^{-m\lambda\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}X_{i}}\geq e^{-m\lambda\frac{k}{m}}\right).\]
Using Markov's inequality ($X\geq0$, $EX=\mu$, $\Rightarrow\Pr(X\geq\delta)\leq\frac{\mu}{\delta}$):
\[
\leq\frac{E_{X^{m}\sim p^{m}}e^{-\lambda\sum_{i=1}^{m}X_{i}}}{e^{-\lambda k}}.\]
Using independence, we get:\[
=e^{\lambda k}\left(pe^{-\lambda}+(1-p)\right)^{m}\]
and rewriting, we get:\[
=e^{mf(\lambda)}\]
where $f(\lambda)=\lambda\frac{k}{m}+\ln\left(pe^{-\lambda}+1-p\right)$.

$\lambda$ is a free parameter which can be optimized to find the
tightest possible bound. To find the optimal value, find $\lambda^{*}$
so that $f'(\lambda^{*})=0$. \[
0=f'(\lambda^{*})=\frac{k}{m}-\frac{pe^{-\lambda^{*}}}{pe^{-\lambda^{*}}+1-p}\]
\[
\Rightarrow\frac{\frac{k}{m}}{p}\left(pe^{-\lambda^{*}}+1-p\right)=e^{-\lambda^{*}}\]
\[
\Rightarrow\frac{\frac{k}{m}}{p}(1-p)=\left(1-\frac{k}{m}\right)e^{-\lambda^{*}}\]
\[
\Rightarrow e^{\lambda^{*}}=\frac{p\left(1-\frac{k}{m}\right)}{\frac{k}{m}(1-p)}\]
which is valid for $p>\frac{k}{m}$. Using this, we get:\[
f(\lambda^{*})=\frac{k}{m}\ln\frac{p\left(1-\frac{k}{m}\right)}{\frac{k}{m}(1-p)}+\ln\left(\frac{1-p}{1-\frac{k}{m}}\right)\]
\[
=\frac{k}{m}\ln\frac{p}{\frac{k}{m}}+\left(1-\frac{k}{m}\right)\ln\left(\frac{1-p}{1-\frac{k}{m}}\right)=-\textrm{KL}\left(\frac{k}{m}||p\right).\]

\end{proof}
Using the Chernoff bound, we can loosen the test set bound to achieve
a more analytic form.

\begin{cor}
(Agnostic Test Set Bound) For all $D$, for all classifiers $c$,
for all $\delta\in(0,1]$\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\textrm{KL}\left(\frac{\hat{c}_{S}}{m}||c_{D}\right)\leq\frac{\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{m}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Loosening the test set bound (theorem \ref{th-hb}) with the Chernoff
approximation for $\frac{k}{m}<c_{D}$ we get:\[
\textrm{Bin}\left(m,k,c_{D}\right)\leq e^{-m\textrm{KL}\left(\frac{k}{m}||c_{D}\right)}.\]
 Setting this equal to $\delta$, and solving for $\epsilon$ gives
the result.
\end{proof}
The agnostic test set bound can be further loosened by bounding the
value of $\textrm{KL}(q||p)$.

\begin{cor}
(Agnostic Test Set Bound II) For all classifiers $c$, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}\leq\frac{\hat{c}_{S}}{m}+\sqrt{\frac{\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{2m}}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Use the approximation:\[
\textrm{KL}\left(\frac{k}{m}||c_{D}\right)\geq2(c_{D}-\frac{k}{m})^{2}\]
with the Chernoff bound and Test set bounds to get the result.
\end{proof}
The differences between the agnostic and realizable case are fundamentally
related to the decrease in the variance of a Binomial as the bias
(i.e. true error) approaches $0$. Note that this implies using the
exact Binomial tail calculation can result in \emph{functional} (rather
than merely constant) improvements on the above corollary. 


\subsubsection{A Test Set Lower Bound}

The true error can be lower bounded using a symmetric application
of the same techniques.

\begin{thm}
\label{th-lb}(Test Set Lower Bound) For all classifiers, $c$, for
all $\delta\in(0,1]$\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}\geq\min_{p}\left\{ p:\,\,1-\textrm{Bin}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},p\right)\geq\delta\right\} \right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{thm}
The proof is completely symmetric. Note that both bounds hold with
probability $1-2\delta$ since $\Pr(A\textrm{ or }B)\leq\Pr(A)+\Pr(B)$.
This is particularly convenient when the square-root version of the
Chernoff approximation is used in both directions to get: \[
\forall c\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\left|c_{D}-\frac{\hat{c}_{S}}{m}\right|\leq\sqrt{\frac{\ln\frac{2}{\delta}}{2m}}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]


\begin{example}
(continued) let $\delta=0.1$. Using the square root Chernoff bound
with $\hat{c}_{S}=38$ out of $100$ examples, we get the confidence
interval $c_{D}\in[0.26,0.50]$. Using an exact calculation for the
Binomial tail, we get: $c_{D}\in[0.30,0.47]$. In general, as the
observed error moves toward $0$, the exact calculation provides a
tighter confidence interval than the agnostic approximation. 
\end{example}

\subsubsection{The state of the art}

Although the test set bound is very well understood, the same cannot
be said of other testing methods. Only weak general results in this
model are known for some variants of cross validation \citep[see]{Progressive}.
For specific learning algorithms (such as nearest neighbor), stronger
results are known \citep[see]{Devroye}. There are a wide range of
essentially unanalyzed methods and a successful analysis seems particularly
tricky although very worthwhile if completed. 


\subsection{Test Set Bound Implications}

\label{subsec-test-implication}

There are some common practices in machine learning which can be improved
by application of the test set bound. When attempting to calculate
a confidence interval on the true error rate given the test set, many
people follow a standard statistical prescription:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Calculate the empirical mean $\hat{\mu}=\frac{\hat{c}_{S_{\textrm{test}}}}{m}=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}I(h(x_{i})\neq y_{i})$.
\item Calculate the empirical variance $\hat{\sigma}^{2}=\frac{1}{m-1}\sum_{i=1}^{m}(I(c(x_{i})=y_{i})-\hat{\mu})^{2}$.
\item Pretend that the distribution is Gaussian with the above variance
and construct a confidence interval by cutting the tails of the Gaussian
cumulative distribution at the $2\hat{\sigma}$ (or some other) point.
\end{enumerate}
This approach is motivated by the fact that for any \emph{fixed} true
error rate, the distribution of the observed accuracy behaves like
a Gaussian \emph{asymptotically.} Here, asymptotically means {}``in
the limit as the number of test examples goes to infinity''.

%
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.60\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{test_vs_two_sigma.ps}\end{center}


\caption{\label{fig-two-sigma-test}This is a graph of the confidence intervals
implied by the test set bound (theorem \ref{th-hb}) on the left,
and the approximate confidence intervals implied using the common
two sigma rule motivated by asymptotic normality on the right. The
upper bounds of the test set bound have $\delta=0.025$ failure rate,
so as to be comparable with the $2$-sigma approach. The test set
bound is better behaved as the confidence interval is confined to
the interval $[0,1]$ and is never over-optimistic. }
\end{figure}
The problem with this approach is that it leads to fundamentally misleading
results as shown in Figure \ref{fig-two-sigma-test}. To construct
this figure, a collection of discrete (aka {}``nominal'') feature
datasets from the UCI machine learning database were split into training
and test sets. A decision tree classifier was learned on each training
set and then evaluated on the held-out test set.

This {}``misleading'' is both pessimistic and (much worse) optimistic.
The pessimism can be seen by intervals with boundaries less than $0$
or greater than $1$ and the optimism by observing what happens when
the test error is $0$. When we observe perfect classification, our
confidence interval should \emph{not} have size $0$ for any finite
$m$. 

The basic problem with this approach is that the Binomial distribution
is not similar to a Gaussian when the error rate is near $0$. Since
our goal is finding a classifier with a small true error, it is essential
that the means we use to evaluate classifiers work in this regime.
The test set bound can satisfy this requirement (and, in fact, operates
well for all true error regimes). 

\begin{enumerate}
\item The test set bound approach is \emph{never} optimistic. 
\item The test set bound based confidence interval always returns an upper
and lower bound in $[0,1]$.
\end{enumerate}
The $2\hat{\sigma}$ method is a relic of times when computational
effort was expensive. It is now simple and easy to calculate a bound
based upon the cumulative distribution of the Binomial \citep[see]{bound}. 

The test set bound can be thought of as a game where a {}``Learner''
attempts to convince a reasonable {}``Verifier'' of the amount of
learning which has occurred. Pictorially we can represent this as
in Figure \ref{fig-holdout-protocol}.%
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.90\columnwidth]{test_set.eps}\end{center}


\caption{\label{fig-holdout-protocol} For this diagram {}``increasing time''
is pointing downwards. The only requirement for applying this bound
is that the learner must commit to a classifier without knowledge
of the test examples. A similar diagram for train set bounds is presented
later (and is somewhat more complicated). We can think of the bound
as a technique by which the {}``Learner'' can convince the {}``Verifier''
that learning has occurred (and the degree to which it has occurred).
Each of the proofs can be thought of as a communication protocol for
an interactive proof of learning by the Learner.}
\end{figure}
 


\section{The Occam's Razor Bound}

\label{sec-train}

Given that the simple test set bound works well, why do we need to
engage in further work? There is one serious drawback to the test
set technique---it requires $m_{\textrm{test}}$ otherwise unused
examples. An extra $m_{\textrm{test}}$ examples for the training
set decreases the true error of the learned hypothesis to $0$ from
$0.5$ for some natural learning algorithm/learning problem pairs.
This loss of performance due to holding out examples is very severe.

There is another reason why training set based bounds are important.
Many learning algorithms implicitly assume that the train set accuracy
{}``behaves like'' the true error in choosing the hypothesis. With
an inadequate number of training examples, there may be very little
relationship between the behavior of the train set accuracy and the
true error. Training set based bounds can be used \emph{in} the training
algorithm and can provide insight into the learning problem itself. 

This section is organized into three subsections.

\begin{enumerate}
\item Subsection \ref{subsec-train-set-upper} states and proves the Occam's
Razor bound.
\item Subsection \ref{sec-lower_upper} proves that the Occam's Razor bound
cannot be improved in general. 
\item Subsection \ref{subsec-train-set-practice} discusses implications
of the Occam's Razor bound and shows results for its application. 
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{The Occam's Razor bound}

\label{subsec-train-set-upper}

This Occam's Razor bound \citep{BEHW}\citep{PB} in more approximate
forms has appeared elsewhere.  We use {}``prior'' (with quotes) here
because it is an arbitrary probability distribution over classifiers
and not necessarily a Bayesian prior. The distinction is important,
because the theory holds regardless of whether or not a Bayesian prior
is used.

\begin{thm}
\label{th-ORB} (Occam's Razor Bound) For all $D$, for all {}``priors''
$P(c)$ over the classifiers $c$, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall c:\,\, c_{D}\leq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)\geq1-\delta\]

\end{thm}
The application of the Occam's Razor bound is somewhat more complicated
than the application of the test set bound. Pictorially, the protocol
for bound application is given in Figure \ref{fig-training-set}.
It is very important to notice that the {}``prior'' $P(c)$ must
be selected \emph{before} seeing the training examples.

%
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.90\columnwidth]{training_set.eps}\end{center}


\caption{\label{fig-training-set} In order to apply the Occam's Razor bound
it is necessary that the choice of {}``prior'' be made before seeing
any training examples. Then, the bound is calculated based upon the
chosen classifier. Note that it \emph{is} {}``legal'' to chose the
classifier based upon the prior $P(c)$ as well as the empirical error
$\hat{c}_{S}$. }
\end{figure}


\begin{proof}
(pictorially in Figure \ref{fig-train-proof}) First, note that if
$P(c)=0$, then $\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},0\right)=1$
and the bound is always valid. The remainder of this proof applies
to the countable set of $c$ satisfying $P(c)>0$.

The proof starts with the test set bound:\[
\forall c\,\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}\leq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)\geq1-\delta P(c)\]
Negating this statement, we get:\[
\forall c\,\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}>\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)<\delta P(c)\]
then, we apply the union bound in a nonuniform manner. The union bound
says that $\Pr(A\textrm{ or }B)\leq\Pr(A)+\Pr(B)$. Applying the union
bound to every classifier with a positive measure gives a total probability
of failure of\[
\sum_{c:P(c)>0}\delta P(c)=\delta\sum_{c:P(c)>0}P(c)=\delta\]
which implies\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\exists c:\,\,\, c_{D}>\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)<\delta.\]
Negating this again completes the proof. 
\end{proof}
%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  width=0.30\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{nonuniform_binomials.ps}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.30\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{deep_cut_nonuniform_binomials.ps}

\includegraphics[%
  width=0.30\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{deep_cut_consistent_binomials.ps} \includegraphics[%
  width=0.30\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{deep_cut_bound.ps}


\caption{\label{fig-train-proof} The sequence of pictures is the pictorial
representation of the proof of the Occam's Razor Bound. The first
figure shows a set of classifiers, each with a tail cut of some varying
depth. The second picture shows an observed training error and the
possible Binomial distributions for a chosen classifier. The third
picture shows the true errors which are consistent with the observation
and the tail cuts. The fourth picture shows the true error bound. }
\end{figure}

\subsubsection{Occam's Razor Corollaries}

Just as with the test set bound, we can relax the Occam's Razor bound
(Theorem \ref{th-ORB}) with the Chernoff approximations to get a
somewhat more tractable expression. 

\begin{cor}
\label{th-horb} (Chernoff Occam's Razor Bound) For all $D$, for
all {}``priors'' $P(c)$ over classifiers, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall c:\,\, c_{D}\leq\frac{\hat{c}_{S}}{m}+\sqrt{\frac{\ln\frac{1}{P(c)}+\ln\frac{1}{\delta}}{2m}}\right)\geq1-\delta\]

\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Approximate the Binomial tail with the Chernoff Bound (lemma \ref{lem:Relative-Entropy-Chernoff}).
\end{proof}
Many people are more familiar with a degenerate form of this bound
where $P(c)=\frac{1}{|H|}$ and $H$ is some set of classifiers. In
that case, simply replace $\ln\frac{1}{P(c)}$ with $\ln|H|$. The
form presented here is both more general and necessary if the bound
is to be used in practice. 

Other corollaries as in Section \ref{sub:Corollaries} exist for the
Occam's Razor bound. In general, just substitute $\delta\rightarrow\delta P(c)$.


\subsubsection{Occam's Razor Lower bound}

Just as for the test set bound, a lower bound of the same form applies.

\begin{thm}
\label{th-lorb} (Occam's Razor Lower Bound) For all D, for all {}``priors''
$P(c)$ over the classifiers, $c$, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall c:\,\, c_{D}\geq\min_{p}\{ p:\,\,1-\textrm{Bin}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},p\right)\geq\delta P(c)\}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{thm}
\begin{example}
(continued) Suppose that instead of having $100$ test examples, we
had $100$ train examples. Also suppose that before seeing the train
examples, we committed to $P(c)=0.1$ for $c$ the constant classifier
which predicts {}``no rain''. Then, the Chernoff approximations
of the upper and lower bound give the interval, $c_{D}\in[0.22,0.54]$.
With an exact calculation, we get $c_{D}\in[0.26,0.51]$.
\end{example}

\subsubsection{The state of the art}

A very large amount of work has been done on train set bounds. In
addition to those included here, there are: 

\begin{enumerate}
\item Reinterpretations of uniform convergence \citep{Vapnik} results for
continuously parameterized classifiers. 
\item Reinterpretations of PAC convergence \citep{Valiant} results. 
\item Shell bounds \citep{Shell} which take advantage of the distribution
of true error rates on classifiers. 
\item Train and Test bounds \citep{TnT} which combine train set and test
set bounds. 
\item (Local) Rademacher complexity \citep{BBM} results which take advantage
of the error geometry of nearby classifiers. 
\end{enumerate}
... and many other results.

Of this large amount of work only a small fraction has been shown
to be useful on real-world learning algorithm/learning problem pairs.
The looseness of train set based bounds often precludes analytical
use. 


\subsection{The Occam's Razor Bound is Sometimes Tight}

\label{sec-lower_upper}

The question of tightness for train set bounds is important to address,
as many of them have been extremely loose. The simplest method to
address this tightness is constructive: exhibit a learning problem/algorithm
pair for which the bound is almost achieved. For the test set bound,
this is trivial as any classifier with a large enough true error will
achieve the bound. For the train set bound, this is not so trivial.

How tight is the Occam's Razor bound (\ref{th-ORB})? The answer is
\emph{sometimes} tight. In particular, we can exhibit a set of learning
problems where the Occam's Razor bound can not be made significantly
tighter as a function of the observables, $m$, $\delta$, $P(c)$,
and $\hat{c}_{S}$. After fixing the value of these quantities we
construct a learning problem exhibiting this near equivalence to the
Occam's Razor bound.

\begin{thm}
\label{th-dhlub}(Occam's Razor tightness) For all $P(c)$, $m$,
$k$, $\delta$ there exists a learning problem $D$ and algorithm
such that: \[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\exists c:\,\,\hat{c}_{S}\leq k\textrm{ and }c_{D}\geq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)\geq\delta-\delta^{2}.\]
 Furthermore, if $c^{*}$ is the classifier with minimal training
error, then: \[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}^{*}\geq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S}^{*},\delta P(c)\right)\right)\geq\delta-\delta^{2}.\]

\end{thm}
Intuitively, this theorem implies that we can not improve significantly
on the Occam's Razor bound (Theorem \ref{th-ORB}) without using extra
information about our learning problem. 

\begin{proof}
The proof is constructive: we create a learning problem on which large
deviations are likely. We start with a prior $P(c)$, probability
of error $\delta$, $m$, and a targeted empirical error number, $k$.
For succinctness we assume that $P(c)$ has support on a finite set
of size $n$. 

To define the learning problem, let: $X=\{0,1\}^{n}$ and $Y=\{0,1\}$. 

The distribution $D$ can be drawn by first selecting $Y$ with a
single unbiased coin flip, and then choosing the $i$th component
of the vector $X$ independently, $\Pr((X_{1},...,X_{n})|Y)=\Pi_{i=1}^{n}\Pr(X_{i}|Y)$
. The individual components are chosen so 
$\Pr(X_{i}=Y|Y)=\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\delta P(c)\right)$. 

The classifiers we consider just use one feature to make their classification:
$c_{i}(x)=x_{i}$. The true error of these classifiers is given by:
$c_{D}=\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\delta P(c)\right)$. 

This particular choice of true errors implies that if any classifier
has a too-small train error, then the classifier with minimal train
error must have a too-small train error. 

Using this learning problem, we know that:\[
\forall c,\forall\delta\in(0,1]:\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}\geq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)=\delta P(c)\]
(negation)\[
\Rightarrow\forall c,\forall\delta\in(0,1]:\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}<\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)=1-\delta P(c)\]
(independence)\[
\Rightarrow\forall\delta\in(0,1]:\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall c\,\, c_{D}<\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)<\prod_{c}\left(1-\delta P(c)\right)\]
(negation)\[
\Rightarrow\forall\delta\in(0,1]:\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\exists c\,\, c_{D}\geq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,\hat{c}_{S},\delta P(c)\right)\right)\geq1-\prod_{c}(1-\delta P(c))\]
\[
=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\delta P(c_{i})\prod_{j<i}\left(1-\delta P(c_{j})\right)\geq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\delta P(c_{i})(1-\delta)=\delta-\delta^{2}\]
where the last inequality follows from $(1-a)(1-b)\geq1-a-b$ for
$a,b\in[0,1]$.
\end{proof}
The lower bound theorem implies that we can not improve an Occam's
Razor like statement. However, it is important to note that large
improvements are possible if we use other sources of information.
To see this, just note the case where every single classifier happens
to be the same. In this case the {}``right'' bound would the be
the \emph{test} set bound, rather than the Occam's Razor bound. The
PAC-Bayes bound and the Sample Compression bound presented in the
next sections use other sources of information. Another common source
of information is specialization to classifiers of some specific sort.


\subsection{Occam's Razor Bound Implications }

\label{subsec-train-set-practice}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\includegraphics[%
  width=0.60\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{test_vs_micro.ps}\end{center}


\caption{\label{fig-microchoice-holdout}This is a plot comparing confidence
intervals built based upon the test set bound (Theorem \ref{th-hb})
with an 80\%/20\% train/test split on the left and the Occam's Razor
bound (Theorem \ref{th-ORB}) with all data in the training set on
the right. The Occam's razor bound is sometimes superior on the smaller
data sets and always nonvacuous (in contrast to many other train set
bounds). }
\end{figure}


The Occam's Razor bound is strongly related to compression. In particular,
for any self-terminating description language, $d(c)$, we can associate
a {}``prior'' $P(c)=2^{-|d(c)|}$ with the property that $\sum_{c}P(c)\leq1$.
Consequently, short description length classifiers tend to have a
tighter convergence and the penalty term, $\ln\frac{1}{P(c)}$ is
the number of {}``nats'' (bits base e). For any language fixed before
seeing the training sequence, classifiers with shorter description
lengths have tighter bounds on the true error rate. 

One particularly useful description language to consider is the execution
trace of a learning algorithm. If we carefully note the sequence of
data-dependent choices which a learning algorithm makes, then the
output classifier can be specified by a sequence such as {}``2nd
choice, third choice, first choice, etc...'' This is the idea behind
microchoice bounds \citep{MC_journal}. Results for this approach are
reported in Figure \ref{fig-microchoice-holdout} and are strong enough
to act as an empirical existence proof that Occam's Razor bounds can
be made tight enough for useful application. 


\section{PAC-Bayes Bound}

\label{sec:PAC-Bayes-Bound}

The PAC-Bayes bound \citep{PB} is particularly exciting because it
can provide quantitatively useful results for classifiers with \emph{real
valued} parameters. This includes such commonly used classifiers as
Support Vector Machines and Neural Networks.%
\footnote{There is a caveat here---the bound only applies to stochastic versions
of the classifiers. However, the probability that the stochastic classifier
differs from the classifier can be made very small.%
} This section is divided into three parts:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Subsection \ref{sub:The-PAC-Bayes-Bound} states and proves the PAC-Bayes
Bound.
\item Subsection \ref{sub:How-Tight-is} shows that the PAC-Bayes Bound
is nearly as tight as possible given the observations.
\item Subsection \ref{sub:Application-of-the} discusses results from the
application of the PAC-Bayes bound to support vector machines.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{The PAC-Bayes Bound}

\label{sub:The-PAC-Bayes-Bound}

%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  scale=0.5]{pac-bayes.eps}


\caption{\label{fig:PB-POL} The {}``interactive proof of learning'' associated
with the PAC-Bayes bound. The figure is the same as for the Occam's
razor bound, except that instead of committing to a single classifier,
the PAC-Bayes bound applies to any distribution over classifiers. }
\end{figure}


The PAC-Bayes bound has been improved by tightening \citep{averaging}
and then with a much simpler proof \citep{Matthias} since it was originally
stated. The statement and proof presented here incorporate these improvements
and improve on them slightly.

The PAC-Bayes bound is dependent upon two derived quantities, an average
true error:\[
Q_{D}\equiv E_{c\sim Q}c_{D}\]
and an average train error rate:\[
\hat{Q}_{S}\equiv E_{c\sim Q}\frac{\hat{c}_{S}}{m}.\]
These quantities can be interpreted as the train error rate and true
error of the meta-classifier which chooses a classifier according
to $Q$ every time a classification is made. If we refer to this meta-classifier
as $Q$, the notation for error rates is consistent with our earlier
notation. 

The {}``interactive proof of learning'' viewpoint of the PAC-Bayes
bound is shown in Figure \ref{fig:PB-POL}. It is essentially the
same as for the Occam's Razor bound except for the commitment to the
metaclassifier $Q$ rather than the classifier $c$.

\begin{thm}
(PAC-Bayes Bound) For all $D$, for all {}``priors'' $P(c)$ over
the classifiers $c$, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall Q(c):\,\,\textrm{KL}_{+}\left(\hat{Q}_{S}||Q_{D}\right)\leq\frac{\textrm{KL}(Q||P)+\ln\frac{m+1}{\delta}}{m}\right)\geq1-\delta\]
where $\textrm{KL}(Q||P)=E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{Q(c)}{P(c)}$ is the
KL-divergence between $Q$ and $P$.
\end{thm}
Note that the PAC-Bayes bound applies to any \emph{distribution} over
classifiers. When $Q$ is concentrated on one classifier, we have
$\textrm{KL}(Q||P)=\ln\frac{1}{P(c)}$, just as in the Occam's razor
bound,%
\footnote{As weakened with the relative entropy Chernoff bound (Lemma \ref{lem:Relative-Entropy-Chernoff})
on the Binomial. %
} with the only distinction being the additive $\frac{\ln(m+1)}{m}$
term. It is somewhat surprising that the bound holds for \emph{every}
distribution $Q$ with only the slight worsening by $\frac{\ln(m+1)}{m}$.

Since the KL-divergence applies to distributions over continuous valued
parameters, the PAC-Bayes bound can be nontrivially tight in this
setting as well. This fact is used in the application section.

We first state a couple simple lemmas that are handy in the proof.
The intuition behind this lemma is that the expected probability of
an event is not too small. 

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:exp-approx}For all $D$, for all $P(c)$, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(E_{c\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=\hat{c}_{S'}\right)}\leq\frac{m+1}{\delta}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that:\[
\forall c\,\,\, E_{S\sim D^{m}}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=\hat{c}_{S'}\right)}=\sum_{\frac{k}{m}}\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=k\right)\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S'}=k\right)}=m+1.\]
Taking the expectation over classifiers according to $P$ and switching
the order of expectation, we get:

\[
E_{S\sim D^{m}}E_{c\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=\hat{c}_{S'}\right)}=m+1\]
and using the Markov inequality ($X\geq0$, $EX=\mu$, $\Rightarrow\Pr(X>\frac{\mu}{\delta})<\delta$),
we get:

\[
\forall P\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(E_{c\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=\hat{c}_{S'}\right)}>\frac{m+1}{\delta}\right)<\delta.\]

\end{proof}
The next lemma shows that a certain expectation is bounded by the
Kullback-Leibler distance between two coin flips, just as for the
relative entropy Chernoff bound (Lemma \ref{lem:Relative-Entropy-Chernoff}).

\begin{lem}
\label{lemma: KL-approx}Fix all example sequences $S$. For all $Q(c)$:
\[
\frac{E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=\hat{c}_{s'}\right)}}{m}\geq\textrm{KL}(\hat{Q}_{S}||Q_{D}).\]

\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\[
\frac{E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S}=\hat{c}_{s'}\right)}}{m}=\frac{1}{m}E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{1}{\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
\hat{c}_{S}\end{array}\right)c_{D}^{\hat{c}_{S}}(1-c_{D})^{m-\hat{c}_{S}}}\]
 \[
\geq\frac{1}{m}E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{1}{\sum_{k=0}^{\hat{c}_{S}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
m\\
k\end{array}\right)c_{D}^{k}(1-c_{D})^{m-k}}\geq E_{c\sim Q}\textrm{KL}\left(\frac{\hat{c}_{S}}{m}||c_{D}\right)\]
where the last inequality follows from the relative entropy Chernoff
bound. Since $\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial p\partial q}\textrm{KL}(q||p)=-\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{1-p}<0$
the function is concave in both arguments. Jensen's inequality ($f(x,y)$
concave $\Rightarrow Ef(x,y)\geq f(Ex,Ey)$) gives us:\[
\geq\textrm{KL}(E_{c\sim Q}\hat{c}_{S}||E_{c\sim Q}c_{D})\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
With these two lemmas, the PAC-Bayes theorem is easy to prove.

\begin{proof}
(Of the PAC-Bayes theorem) Fix a training set $S$. Let \[
P_{G}(c)=\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S'}=\hat{c}_{S}\right)E_{d\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{d}_{S}=\hat{d}_{S'}\right)}}P(c).\]
$P_{G}(c)$ is a normalized distribution because it has the form $\frac{a_{c}}{Ea_{c}}P(c)$
where $P(c)$ is a distribution.\[
\Rightarrow0\leq\textrm{KL}(Q||P_{G})=E_{c\sim Q}\ln\left[\frac{Q(c)}{P(c)}\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S'}=\hat{c}_{S}\right)E_{d\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{d}_{S}=\hat{d}_{S'}\right)}\right]\]
\[
=\textrm{KL}(Q||P)-E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S'}=\hat{c}_{S}\right)}+\ln E_{d\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{d}_{S}=\hat{d}_{S'}\right)}\]
\[
\Rightarrow E_{c\sim Q}\ln\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S'}=\hat{c}_{S}\right)}\leq\textrm{KL}(Q||P)+\ln E_{d\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{d}_{S}=\hat{d}_{S'}\right)}.\]
Applying lemma \ref{lemma: KL-approx} on the left hand term we get: 

\[
m\textrm{KL}(\hat{Q}_{S}||Q_{D})\leq\textrm{KL}(Q||P)+\ln E_{d\sim P}\frac{1}{\Pr_{S'\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{d}_{S}=\hat{d}_{S'}\right)}.\]
This holds for all $S$. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:exp-approx} which
randomizes over $S$, we get the theorem. 
\end{proof}

\subsection{The PAC-Bayes Bound is sometimes Tight}

\label{sub:How-Tight-is}

Since the PAC-Bayes bound is (almost) a generalization of the Occam's
Razor bound, the tightness result for Occam's Razor also applies to
PAC-Bayes bounds. 


\subsection{Application of the PAC-Bayes Bound}

\label{sub:Application-of-the}

Applying the PAC-Bayes bound requires specialization
\citep{PB-margin}. Here, we specialize to classifiers of the form:
\[
c(x)=\textrm{sign}\left(\vec{w}\cdot\vec{x}\right).\]
Note that via the kernel trick, Support Vector Machines also have
this form. 

The specialization is naturally expressed in terms of a few derived
quantities:

\begin{enumerate}
\item The cumulative distribution of a Gaussian. Let $\bar{F}(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^{2}/2}$.
Here we use $\bar{F}$ rather than $F$ to denote the fact that we
integrate from $x$ to $\infty$ rather than $-\infty$ to $x$. 
\item A {}``posterior'' distribution $Q(\vec{w},\mu)$ which is $N(\mu,1)$
for some $\mu>0$ in the direction of $\vec{w}$ and $N(0,1)$ in
all perpendicular directions.
\item The normalized margin of the examples\[
\gamma(\vec{x},y)=\frac{y\vec{w}\cdot\vec{x}}{||\vec{w}||||\vec{x}||}.\]

\item A stochastic error rate, $\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{S}=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}\bar{F}\left(\mu\gamma(\vec{x},y)\right).$
\end{enumerate}
This last quantity in particular is very important to understand.
Consider the case as $\mu$ approaches $\infty$. When the margin
is negative (indicating an incorrect classification), $\bar{F}\left(\mu\gamma(\vec{x},y)\right)$
approaches $1$. When the margin is positive $\bar{F}\left(\mu\gamma(\vec{x},y)\right)$
approaches $0$. Thus, $\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{S}$ is a softened form
of the empirical error $\hat{c}_{S}$ which takes into account the
margin. 

\begin{cor}
(PAC-Bayes Margin Bound) For all distributions $D$, for all $\delta\in(0,1]$,
we have: \[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall\vec{w},\mu:\,\,\textrm{KL}\left(\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{S}||Q(\vec{w},\mu)_{D}\right)\leq\frac{\frac{\mu^{2}}{2}+\ln\frac{m+1}{\delta}}{m}\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The proof is very simple. We just chose the prior $P=N(0,1)^{n}$
and work out the implications. 

Since the Gaussian distribution is the same in every direction, we
can reorient the coordinate system of the prior to have one dimension
parallel to $w$. Since the draws in the parallel and perpendicular
directions are independent, we have:\[
\textrm{KL}(Q||P)=\textrm{KL}(Q_{\perp}||P_{\perp})+\textrm{KL}(N(\mu,1)||N(0,1))\]
\[
=\frac{\mu^{2}}{2}\]
as required.

All that remains is calculating the stochastic error rate $\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{S}$.
Fix a particular example $(\vec{x},y)$. This example has a natural
decomposition $\vec{x}=\vec{x}_{||}+\vec{x}_{\perp}$ into a component
$\vec{x}_{||}$ parallel to the weight vector $\vec{w}$ and a component
$\vec{x}_{\perp}$ perpendicular to the weight vector. 

To classify, we draw weight vector $\vec{w}^{'}$ from $\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)$.
This $\vec{w}^{'}$ consists of three components, $\vec{w}^{'}=\vec{w}_{||}^{'}+\vec{w}_{\perp}^{'}+\vec{w}_{\perp\perp}^{'}$.
Here $\vec{w}_{||}^{'}\sim N(\mu,1)$ is parallel to the original
weight vector, $\vec{w}_{\perp}^{'}\sim N(0,1)$ which is parallel
to $\vec{x}_{\perp}$ and $\vec{w}_{\perp\perp}^{'}$ is perpendicular
to both $\vec{w}$ and $\vec{x}$. We have:\[
\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{S}=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S,\vec{w}^{'}\sim Q(\vec{w},\mu)}I\left(y\neq\textrm{sign}\left(\vec{w}^{'}\cdot\vec{x}\right)\right)\]
\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S,\vec{w}^{'}\sim Q(\vec{w},\mu)}I\left(y\vec{w}\cdot\vec{x}\leq0\right).\]
 If we let $w_{||}^{'}=||\vec{w}_{||}^{'}||$, $w_{\perp}^{'}=||\vec{w}_{\perp}^{'}||$,
$x_{||}=||\vec{x}_{||}||$, and $x_{\perp}=||\vec{x}_{\perp}||$,
and assume (without loss of generality) that $y=1$ we get: \[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S,w_{||}^{'}\sim N(\mu,1),w_{\perp}^{'}\sim N(0,1)}I\left(y(w_{||}^{'}x_{||}+w_{\perp}^{'}x_{\perp})\leq0\right)\]
\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}E_{w_{||}^{'}\sim N(\mu,1)}E_{w_{\perp}^{'}\sim N(0,1)}I\left(y(w_{||}^{'}x_{||}+w_{\perp}^{'}x_{\perp})\leq0\right)\]
\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}E_{z^{'}\sim N(0,1)}E_{w_{\perp}^{'}\sim N(0,1)}I\left(y\mu\leq-yz^{'}-yw_{\perp}^{'}\frac{x_{\perp}}{x_{||}}\right).\]
Using the symmetry of the Gaussian, this is:\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}E_{z^{'}\sim N(0,1)}E_{w_{\perp}^{'}\sim N(0,1)}I\left(y\mu\leq yz^{'}+yw_{\perp}^{'}\frac{x_{\perp}}{x_{||}}\right)\]
Using the fact that the sum of two Gaussians is a Gaussian:\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}E_{v\sim N\left(0,1+\frac{x_{\perp}^{2}}{x_{||}^{2}}\right)}I\left(y\mu\leq yv\right)\]
\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}E_{v\sim N\left(0,\frac{1}{\gamma(\vec{x},y)^{2}}\right)}I\left(y\mu\leq yv\right)\]
\[
=E_{\vec{x},y\sim S}\bar{F}\left(\mu\gamma(\vec{x},y)\right)\]
finishing the proof.
\end{proof}
Using the corollary, the true error bound $\bar{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{D}$
satisfies the equation: \[
\textrm{KL}\left(\hat{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{S}||\bar{Q}(\vec{w},\mu)_{D}\right)=\frac{\frac{\mu^{2}}{2}+\ln\frac{m+1}{\delta}}{m}.\]
This is an implicit equation for $\bar{Q}$ which can be easily solved
numerically. 

The bound is stated in terms of dot products here, so naturally it
is possible to kernelize the result using methods from \citep{kernelize}.
In kernelized form, the bound applies to classifiers (as output by
SVM learning algorithms) of the form: \begin{equation}
c(x)=\textrm{sign}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}k(x_{i},x)\right).\label{eq:class-kernel}\end{equation}
Since, by assumption, $k$ is a kernel, we know that $k(x_{i},x)=\vec{\Phi}(x_{i})\cdot\vec{\Phi}(x)$
where $\vec{\Phi}(x)$ is some projection into another space. In kernelized
form, we get $\vec{w}\cdot\vec{x}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}k(x_{i},x)$,
$\vec{x}\cdot\vec{x}=k(x,x)$, $\vec{w}\cdot\vec{w}=\sum_{i,j}\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}k(x_{i},x_{j})$,
defining all of the necessary quantities to calculate the normalized
margin, \[
\gamma(x,y)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}k(x_{i},x)}{\sqrt{k(x,x)\sum_{i,j=1,1}^{m,m}\alpha_{i}\alpha_{j}k(x_{i},x_{j})}}.\]
 

One element remains, which is the value of $\mu$. Unfortunately the
bound can be nonmonotonic in the value of $\mu$, but it turns out
that for classifiers learned by support vector machines on reasonable
datasets, there is only one value of $\mu$ which is (locally, and
thus globally) minimal. A binary search over some reasonable range
of $\mu$ (say from $1$ to $100$) can find the minima quickly, given
the precomputation of the margins. It is worth noting again here that
we are not {}``cheating''---the bound holds for all values of $\mu$
simultaneously. 

The computational time of the bound calculation is dominated by the
calculation of the margins which is $O\left(m^{2}\right)$ where $m$
is the number of support vectors with a nonzero associated $\alpha$.
This computational time is typically dominated by the time of the
SVM learning algorithm. 


\subsubsection{Results}

Application of this bound to support vector machines is of significant
importance because SVMs are reasonably effective and adaptable classifiers
in common and widespread use. An SVM learns a kernelized classifier
as per equation (\ref{eq:class-kernel})%
\footnote{Some SVM learning algorithms actually learn a classifier of the form:
$c(x)=\textrm{sign}\left(b+\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}k(x_{i},x)\right)$.
We don't handle this form here.%
}. 

We apply the support vector machine to 8 UCI database problems chosen
to fit the criteria {}``two classes'' and {}``real valued input
features''. The problems vary in size over an order of magnitude
from $145$ to $1428$ examples. In Figure \ref{fig:test} we use
a 70/30 train/test split of the data. 

In all experiments, we use SVMlight \citep{svmlight} with a Gaussian
kernel and the default bandwidth. Results for other reasonable choices
of the {}``C'', bandwidth%
\footnote{Note that the bandwidth of a Gaussian kernel used by an SVM is not
directly related to the optimized value of $\mu$ we find.%
}, and kernel appear to be qualitatively similar (although of course
they differ quantitatively).

%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  width=0.60\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{test_and_margin.ps}


\caption{\label{fig:test} This figure shows the results of applying SVMlight
to 8 datasets with a Gaussian kernel and a 70/30 train/test split.
The observed test error rate is graphed as an X. On the test set,
we calculate a Binomial confidence interval (probability of bound
failure = $0.01$) which upper bounds the true error rate. On the
training set we calculate the PAC-Bayes margin bound for an optimized
choice of $\mu$. }
\end{figure}
It is important to note that the PAC-Bayes margin bound is \emph{not}
precisely a bound (or confidence interval) on the true error rate
of the learned classifier. Instead, it is a true error rate bound
on an associated stochastic classifier chosen so as to have a similar
test error rate. These bounds can be regarded as bounds for the original
classifier only under an additional assumption: that picking a classifier
according to the majority vote of this stochastic distribution does
not worsen the true error rate. This is not true in general, but may
be true in practice. 

It is of course unfair to compare the train set bound with the test
set bound on a 70/30 train/test split because a very tight train set
bound would imply that it is unnecessary to even have a test set.
In Figure \ref{fig:full-train} we compare the true error bounds on
all of the data to the true error bounds generated from the 70/30
train/test split.

%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  width=0.60\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{test_vs_margin.ps}


\caption{\label{fig:full-train} In addition to comparing with everything
in Figure \ref{fig:test}, we graph the margin bound when \emph{all}
of the data is used for the train set. Note that it improves somewhat
on the margin bound calculated using the 70\% train set (7/10 margin
bound), but not enough to compete with the test set bound. }
\end{figure}
The results show that the PAC-Bayes margin bound is tight enough to
give useful information, but still not competitive with the test set
bounds. This is in strong contrast with a tradition of quantitatively
impractical margin bounds. There are several uses available for bounds
which provide some information but which are not fully tight. 

\begin{enumerate}
\item They might be combined with a train/test bound \citep{TnT}. 
\item The train set bound might easily become tighter for smaller sample
sizes. This was observed in \citep{TnT}.
\item The train set bound might still have the right {}``shape'' for choosing
an optimal parameter setting, such as {}``C'' in a Support Vector
Machine.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Sample Compression Bound}

\label{sec:Sparsity-Bound}

The sample compression bound \citep{LW}, \citep{FW} is like the PAC-Bayes
bound in that it applies to arbitrary precision continuous valued
classifiers. Unlike the PAC-Bayes bound, it applies meaningfully to
nonstochastic classifiers. Mainstream learning algorithms do not optimize
the sample compression metric, so the bound application is somewhat
rarer. Nonetheless, there do exist some reasonably competitive learning
algorithms for which the sample compression bound produces significant
results.

The section is organized as follows:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Subsection \ref{sub:The-Sample-Compression-Bound} states and proves
the sample compression bound.
\item Subsection \ref{sub:SC-tightness} shows that the sample compression
bound is nearly as tight as possible given the observations.
\item Subsection \ref{sub:SC-application} discusses results from the application
of the sample compression bound to support vector machines.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{The Sample Compression Bound}

\label{sub:The-Sample-Compression-Bound}

The Sample Compression bound \citep{LW} \citep{FW} stated here differs
from older results by generalization and simplification but the bound
behavior is qualitatively identical.

Suppose we have a learning algorithm $A(S)$ whose training is {}``sparse''%
\footnote{This is satisfied, for example, by the Support Vector Machine algorithm
which only depends upon the set of support vectors.%
} in the sense that the output classifier is dependent upon only a
subset of the data, $A(S)=A(S')$ for $S'\subseteq S$. The sample
compression bound is dependent on the errors, $\hat{c}_{S-S'}$ on
the subset $S-S'$. The motivation here is that the examples which
the learning algorithm does \emph{not} depend upon are {}``almost''
independent and so we can {}``almost'' get a test set bound. In
general, the bound becomes tighter as the dependent subset $S'$ becomes
smaller and as the error number on the nondependent subset $S-S'$
becomes smaller. 

%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  scale=0.5]{sample_compression.eps}


\caption{\label{fig:SC-POL} The interactive proof of learning for the sample
compression bound. Note that the learning algorithm is arbitrary here,
similar to the test set bound.}
\end{figure}


Viewed as an interactive proof of learning (in Figure \ref{fig:SC-POL}),
the sample compression bound is unique amongst training set bounds
because it does not require \emph{any} initial commitment to a measure
over the classifiers%
\footnote{However, we can regard the commitment to a learning algorithm as an
implicit commitment to a measure over classifiers which is dependent
on the learning algorithm and the distribution generating the data.
Viewed from this perspective, the sample compression bound is the
Occam's Razor bound, except for the minor detail that the set of evaluating
examples varies.%
}. 

\begin{thm}
(Sample Compression Bound) For all $\delta\in(0,1]$, $D$, $A$:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall S'\subseteq S\,\,\,\textrm{with }c=A(S'):\,\,\, c_{D}\leq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S'|,\hat{c}_{S-S'},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)\right)\geq1-\delta.\]

\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose we knew in advance that the learning algorithm will not depend
upon some subset of the examples. Then, the {}``undependent'' subset
acts like a test set and gives us a test set bound:\[
\forall S'\subseteq S,\,\, c=A(S'):\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}\leq\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S'|,\hat{c}_{S-S'},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)\right)\geq1-\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}.\]
(Note that, technically, it is possible to refer to $S'$ unambiguously
before randomizing over $S$ by specifying the indexes of $S$ contained
in $S'$.) Negating this, we get:

\[
\forall S'\subseteq S,\,\, c=A(S'):\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c_{D}>\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S'|,\hat{c}_{S-S'},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)\right)<\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\]
and using the union bound ($\Pr(A\textrm{ or }B)\leq\Pr(A)+\Pr(B)$)
over each possible subset, $S'$, we get:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\exists S'\subseteq S\,\,\,\textrm{with }c=A(S'):\,\,\, c_{D}>\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S'|,\hat{c}_{S-S'},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)\right)<\delta.\]
Negating this again gives us the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The Sample Compression Bound is Sometimes Tight}

\label{sub:SC-tightness}

We can construct a learning algorithm/learning problem pair such that
the Sample compression bound is provably near optimal, as a function
of its observables. 

\begin{thm}
(Sample Compression Tightness) For all $\delta\in(0,1]$, $m$, $k$,
there exists a distribution $D$ and learning algorithm $A$ s.t.\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\exists S'\subseteq S\,\,\,\textrm{with }c=A(S'):\,\,\, c_{D}>\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S'|,\hat{c}_{S-S'},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)\right)>\delta-\delta^{2}.\]
furthermore, if $S^{*}$ minimizes $\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S'|,\hat{c}_{S-S'},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)$,
then \[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(c^{*}=A(S^{*}):\,\,\, c_{D}^{*}>\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(|S-S^*|,\hat{c}_{S-S^{*}}^{*},\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S^{*}|}}}\right)\right)>\delta-\delta^{2}.\]

\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The proof is constructive and similar to the Occam's Razor tightness
result. In particular, we show how to construct a learning algorithm
which outputs classifiers that err independently depending on the
subset $S'$ used. 

Consider an input space $X=\{0,1\}^{2^{m}}$. Each variable in the
input space $x_{S'}$ can be thought of as indexing a unique subset
$S'\subseteq S$ of the examples. In the rest of the proof, we index
variables by the subset they correspond to.

Draws from the distribution $D$ can be made by first flipping an
unbiased coin to get $y=1$ with probability $0.5$ and $y=-1$ with
probability $0.5$. The distribution on $X$ consists of a set of
independent values after conditioning on $y$. Choose \[
\Pr(x_{S'}\neq y)=\overline{\textrm{Bin}}\left(m,k,\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right).\]
Now, the learning algorithm $A(S')$ is very simple---it just outputs
the classifier $c(x)=x_{S'}$. On the set $S-S'$, we have:\[
\forall S'\,\,\,\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\hat{c}_{S-S'}\geq\frac{k}{m}\right)=1-\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}.\]
Using independence, we get:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall S'\,\,\,\hat{c}_{S-S'}\geq\frac{k}{m}\right)=\prod_{S'}\left(1-\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right).\]
Negating, we get:\[
\Pr_{S\sim D^{m}}\left(\forall S'\,\,\,\hat{c}_{S-S'}<\frac{k}{m}\right)=1-\prod_{S'}\left(1-\frac{\delta}{m{{m \choose |S-S'|}}}\right)\]
and doing some algebra, we get the result.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Application of the Sample Compression Bound}

\label{sub:SC-application}

One obvious application of the Sample Compression bound is to support
vector machines, since the learned classifier is only dependent on
the set of support vectors. If $S'$ is the set of support vectors
then $S-S'$ is the set of nonsupport vectors. Unfortunately, it turns
out that this does not work so well, as observed in Figure \ref{fig:sc-svm}.
%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[%
  width=0.60\columnwidth,
  angle=270]{test_and_compress.ps}


\caption{\label{fig:sc-svm}The sample compression bound applied to the output
of a support vector machine with a Gaussian kernel. Here we use $\delta=0.01$}
\end{figure}


There are other less common learning algorithms for which the sample
compression bound works well. The Set Covering machine \citep{SCM}
has an associated bound which is a variant of the Sample Compression
Bound. 


\section{Discussion}

Here, we discuss several aspects and implications of the presented
bounds.

\subsection{Learning algorithm design}

\emph{Every} train set bound implies a learning algorithm: choose
the classifier which minimizes the true error bound. This sounds like
a rich source of learning algorithms, but there are some severe caveats
to that statement. 

\begin{enumerate}
\item It is important to note that the form of a train set bound does \emph{not}
imply that this minimization is a good idea. Choosing between two
classifiers based upon their true error bound implies a better worst-case
bound on the true error. It does not imply an improved true error.
In many situations, there is some other metric of comparison (such
as train error) which in fact creates better behavior.
\item Another strong caveat is that, historically, train set bounds have
simply not been tight enough on real datasets for a nonvacuous application.
This is changing with new results, but more progress is necessary.
\item Often the optimization problem is simply not very tractable. In addition
to sample complexity, learning algorithms must be concerned with run
time and space usage. 
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Philosophy}

Train set bounds teach us about ways in which verifiable learning
is possible, a subject which borders on philosophy. The train set
bound presented here essentially shows that a reasonable person will
be convinced of learning success when a short-description classifier
does well on train set data. The results here do \emph{not} imply
that this is the only way to convincingly learn. In fact, the (sometimes
large) looseness of the Occam's Razor bound suggests that other methods
for convincing learning processes exist. This observation is partially
shown by the other train set bounds which are presented.


\subsection{Conclusion}

This introduction to prediction theory covered two styles of bound:
the test set bound and the train set bound. There are two important
lessons here:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Test set bounds provide a better way to report error rates and confidence
intervals on future error rates than some current methods. 
\item Train set bounds can provide useful information. 
\end{enumerate}
It is important to note that the train set bound and test set bound
techniques are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to use both
simultaneously \citep{TnT}, and doing so is often desirable. Test
set bounds are improved by the {}``free'' information about the
training error and train set bounds become applicable, even when not
always tight. 

\acks{ Many people were critical to this tutorial. This includes Sam
Roweis who started this, anonymous reviewers who were patient and
capable, several coauthors on previous papers, Imre Kondor, Arindam
Banerjee, Eric Bax, Alina Beygelzimer, Varsha Dani, Tom Hayes, Timothy
Ross, Robert Schapire, and Belinda Thom. I would also like to thank
IBM which supported me during much of the preparation of this
tutorial. }

\appendix
\section{}

\label{sec-model}

For those interested in comparing models, uniform convergence
\citep{Vapnik} additionally requires the axiom of choice (to achieve
empirical risk minimization) and a hypothesis space of bounded
complexity. Typical theorems are of the form {}``after $m$ examples,
all training errors are near to true errors''.

The PAC learning model \citep{Valiant} requires a polynomial time complexity
learning algorithm and the assumption that the learning problem comes
from some class. Theorems are of the form {}``after $m$ examples
learning will be achieved''.

Both of these models can support stronger statements than the basic
prediction theory model presented here. Results from both of these
models can apply here after appropriate massaging. 

The online learning model \citep{Online} makes \emph{no} assumptions.
Typical theorems have the form {}``This learning algorithm's performance
will be nearly as good as anyone of a set of classifiers.'' The online
learning model has very general results and no%
\footnote{Note, there do exist online to batch conversions, but these conversions
always occur under an assumption of i.i.d. samples, essentially changing
the setting to the one described here.%
} ability to answer questions about future performance as we address
here.

The prediction theory model can most simply be understood as a slight
refinement of the information theory model. 

%\begin{thebibliography}{label}
%\bibitem[Bartlett et al 2004]{BBM}Peter L. Bartlett, Olivier Bousquet, and Shahar Mendelson. Local Rademacher
%Complexities. Annals of Statistics 2004 (to appear).
%\bibitem[Blumer et al. 1987]{BEHW}A. Blumer, A. Ehrenfeucht, D. Haussler, M. Warmuth. {}``Occam's Razor.''
%Information Processing Letters 24: 377-380, 1987.
%\bibitem[Blum et al 1999]{Progressive}Avrim Blum, Adam Kalai, and John Langford 1999. Beating the Holdout:
%Bounds for K-Fold and Progressive Cross-Validation. Computational
%Learning Theory (COLT) 1999. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/papers/progressive\_validation/coltfinal.ps
%\bibitem[Chernoff 1952]{chernoff}H. Chernoff, {}``A Measure of the Asymptotic Efficiency of Tests
%of a Hypothesis Based Upon the Sum of the Observations'', Annals
%of Mathematical Statistics 23:493-507, 1952.
%\bibitem[Clopper and Pearson 1934]{CnP}C.J. Clopper and E. S. Pearson, {}``The use of confidence intervals
%or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial'', Biometrika
%26 (1934) 404-413.
%\bibitem[Devroye et al 1996]{Devroye}Luc Devroye, Laszlo Gyorfi, Gabor Lugosi, {}``A Probabilistic Theory
%of Pattern Recognition'' Springer-Verlag New York, 1996.
%\bibitem[Floyd and Warmuth 1995]{FW}Sally Floyd and Manfred Warmuth, {}``Sample Compression, Learnability,
%and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis Dimension'', Machine Learning, Vol.21
%(3), pp. 269--304, December 1995 http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/\textasciitilde{}manfred/pubs/sallycompr.forgalleys.ps
%\bibitem[Herbrich and Graepel 2001]{kernelize}R. Herbrich and T. Graepel. {}``Large scale Bayes point machines''
%In T. K. Leen, T. G. Dietterich, and V. Tresp, editors, Advances in
%Neural Information System Processing 13, pages 528-534, Cambridge,
%MA, 2001.
%\bibitem[Hoeffding 1963]{Hewwwewoeffding}W. Hoeffding, {}``Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random
%variables'', Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963,
%58:13-30.
%\bibitem[Joachims ??]{svmlight}Thorsten Joachims, program SVMlight, available at http://svmlight.joachims.org/
%\bibitem[Kearns and Ron 1999]{Sanity}Michael Kearns and Dana Ron, {}``Algorithmic Stability and Sanity-Check
%Bounds for Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation.'' Neural Computation 11(6),
%pages 1427-1453, 1999. 
%\bibitem[Kivinen and Warmuth 1997]{Online}J. Kivinen and M. Warmuth, \char`\"{}Additive Versus Exponentiated
%Gradient Updates for Linear Prediction,\char`\"{} Information and
%Computation, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 1-64, January 1997. http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/\textasciitilde{}manfred/pubs/lin.ps
%\bibitem[Langford 2004]{bound}John Langford, Program {}``bound'', http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/programs/bound/bound.html
%\bibitem[Langford and Blum 1999]{MC_journal}John Langford and Avrim Blum 1999. Microchoice Bounds and Self Bounding
%learning algorithms. Machine Learning. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/papers/microchoice/journal/journal\_final.ps
%\bibitem[Langford and McAllester 2000]{Shell}John Langford and David McAllester, {}``Computable Shell Decomposition
%Bounds'' Computational Learning Theory 2000. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/papers/computable\_shell/colt\_final.ps
%\bibitem[Langford and Seeger 2001]{averaging}John Langford and Matthias Seeger, {}``Bounds for Averaging Classifiers''
%Technical report, Carnegie Mellon 2001 http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/papers/averaging/averaging\_tech.ps
%\bibitem[Langford and Shawe-Taylor 2002]{PB-margin}John Langford and John Shawe-Taylor, {}``PAC-Bayes \& Margins'',
%Neural Information Processing Systems 2002. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/papers/PB-margin/PB-margin.ps
%\bibitem[Langford 2002]{TnT}John Langford, {}``Combining Train Set and Test Set Bounds'', International
%Conference on Machine Learning 2002. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/\textasciitilde{}jcl/papers/tnt\_icml/train\_n\_test\_final.ps
%\bibitem[Littlestone and Warmuth ??]{LW}Nick Littlestone and Manfred Warmuth, {}``Relating Data Compression
%and Learnability'' Unpublished Manuscript http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/\textasciitilde{}manfred/pubs/lrnk-olivier.ps
%\bibitem[McAllester 1999]{PB}David McAllester, ``PAC-Bayesian Model Averaging'' COLT 1999. http://www.autoreason.com/posterior01.ps
%\bibitem[Marchand and Shawe-Taylor 2001]{SCM}Mario Marchand and John Shawe-Taylor, {}``The Set Covering Machine'',
%International Conference on Machine Learning 2001. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/jmlr/papers/volume3/marchand02a/marchand02a.pdf
%\bibitem[Seeger 2002]{Matthias}Matthias Seeger, {}``PAC-Bayesian Generalization Error Bounds for
%Gaussian Process Classification'', Journal of Machine Learning Research
%3 (2002), 233--269. http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/seeger/papers/seeger02a.ps.gz
%\bibitem[Seung ??]{Chernoff}Sebastian Seung, Unpublished notes
%\bibitem[Shawe-Taylor et al 1998]{SBWA}John Shawe-Taylor, Peter Bartlett, Robert Williamson, and Martin Anthory, {}``Structural
%Risk Minimization over Data-Dependent Hierarchies'', IEEE Transactions
%on Information Theory, 1998, vol. 44, no. 5, 1926-1940.
%\bibitem[Valiant 1984]{Valiant}L.G. Valiant. {}``A Theory of the Leuarnable.'' Communications of
%the ACM 27(11):1134-1142, November 1984
%\bibitem[Vapnik and Chervonenkis 1971]{Vapnik}V. N. Vapnik and A. Y. Chervonenkis. {}``On the uniform convergence
%of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities.'' Theory
%of Probability and its Applications, 16(2):264-280, 1971. \end{thebibliography}

\bibliography{langford05a}
\end{document}
