Discriminative learning methods for classification perform well when training and test data are drawn from the same distribution. Often, however, we have plentiful labeled training data from a source domain but wish to learn a classifier which performs well on a target domain with a different distribution and little or no labeled training data. In this work we investigate two questions. First, under what conditions can a classifier trained from source data be expected to perform well on target data? Second, given a small amount of labeled target data, how should we combine it during training with the large amount of labeled source data to achieve the lowest target error at test time?Editors: Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, David R. Hardoon, and Gayle Leen. Preliminary versions of the work contained in this article appeared in Advances in Neural InformationProcessing Systems (Ben-David et al. 2006;Blitzer et al. 2007a Learn (2010) 79: 151-175 We address the first question by bounding a classifier's target error in terms of its source error and the divergence between the two domains. We give a classifier-induced divergence measure that can be estimated from finite, unlabeled samples from the domains. Under the assumption that there exists some hypothesis that performs well in both domains, we show that this quantity together with the empirical source error characterize the target error of a source-trained classifier.We answer the second question by bounding the target error of a model which minimizes a convex combination of the empirical source and target errors. Previous theoretical work has considered minimizing just the source error, just the target error, or weighting instances from the two domains equally. We show how to choose the optimal combination of source and target error as a function of the divergence, the sample sizes of both domains, and the complexity of the hypothesis class. The resulting bound generalizes the previously studied cases and is always at least as tight as a bound which considers minimizing only the target error or an equal weighting of source and target errors.

Machine learning is one of the fastest growing areas of computer science, with far-reaching applications. The aim of this textbook is to introduce machine learning, and the algorithmic paradigms it offers, in a principled way. The book provides a theoretical account of the fundamentals underlying machine learning and the mathematical derivations that transform these principles into practical algorithms. Following a presentation of the basics, the book covers a wide array of central topics unaddressed by previous textbooks. These include a discussion of the computational complexity of learning and the concepts of convexity and stability; important algorithmic paradigms including stochastic gradient descent, neural networks, and structured output learning; and emerging theoretical concepts such as the PAC-Bayes approach and compression-based bounds. Designed for advanced undergraduates or beginning graduates, the text makes the fundamentals and algorithms of machine learning accessible to students and non-expert readers in statistics, computer science, mathematics and engineering.

No abstract

Abstract. Stability is a common tool to verify the validity of sample based algorithms. In clustering it is widely used to tune the parameters of the algorithm, such as the number k of clusters. In spite of the popularity of stability in practical applications, there has been very little theoretical analysis of this notion. In this paper we provide a formal definition of stability and analyze some of its basic properties. Quite surprisingly, the conclusion of our analysis is that for large sample size, stability is fully determined by the behavior of the objective function which the clustering algorithm is aiming to minimize. If the objective function has a unique global minimizer, the algorithm is stable, otherwise it is unstable. In particular we conclude that stability is not a well-suited tool to determine the number of clusters -it is determined by the symmetries of the data which may be unrelated to clustering parameters. We prove our results for center-based clusterings and for spectral clustering, and support our conclusions by many examples in which the behavior of stability is counter-intuitive.

No abstract