mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learnability, Sample Complexity, and Hypothesis Class Complexity for Regression Models

arXiv 2303.16091 ↗First posted 28 Mar 2023stat.ML cs.IT cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The goal of a learning algorithm is to receive a training data set as input and provide a hypothesis that can generalize to all possible data points from a domain set. The hypothesis is chosen from hypothesis classes with potentially different complexities. Linear regression modeling is an important category of learning algorithms. The practical uncertainty of the target samples affects the generalization performance of the learned model. Failing to choose a proper model or hypothesis class can lead to serious issues such as underfitting or overfitting. These issues have been addressed by alternating cost functions or by utilizing cross-validation methods. These approaches can introduce new hyperparameters with their own new challenges and uncertainties or increase the computational complexity of the learning algorithm. On the other hand, the theory of probably approximately correct (PAC) aims at defining learnability based on probabilistic settings. Despite its theoretical value, PAC does not address practical learning issues on many occasions. This work is inspired by the foundation of PAC and is motivated by the existing regression learning issues. The proposed approach, denoted by epsilon-Confidence Approximately Correct (epsilon CoAC), utilizes Kullback Leibler divergence (relative entropy) and proposes a new related typical set in the set of hyperparameters to tackle the learnability issue. Moreover, it enables the learner to compare hypothesis classes of different complexity orders and choose among them the optimum with the minimum epsilon in the epsilon CoAC framework. Not only the epsilon CoAC learnability overcomes the issues of overfitting and underfitting, but it also shows advantages and superiority over the well known cross-validation method in the sense of time consumption as well as in the sense of accuracy.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2023.

Builds on

14 of 57 references.

References · 14

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  2. 2021Generalizing to Unseen Domains: A Survey on Domain Generalizationcited by 766
  3. 2021Domain Generalization: A Surveycited by 764
  4. 2020Learning from Noisy Labels with Deep Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 582
  5. 2019Symmetric Cross Entropy for Robust Learning with Noisy Labelscited by 500
  6. 2017Size-Independent Sample Complexity of Neural Networkscited by 290
  7. 2020A Brief Review of Domain Adaptationcited by 288
  8. 2020Domain Generalization using Causal Matchingcited by 225
  9. 2018Dimensionality-Driven Learning with Noisy Labelscited by 173
  10. 2015Scatter Component Analysis: A Unified Framework for Domain Adaptation and Domain Generalizationcited by 96
  11. 2018Masking: A New Perspective of Noisy Supervisioncited by 93
  12. 2020Secure and Robust Machine Learning for Healthcare: A Surveycited by 80
2 more
  1. 2020The empirical duality gap of constrained statistical learningcited by 9
  2. 2022Relative Entropy (RE) Based LTI System Modeling Equipped with time delay Estimation and Online Modelingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.