1. Potential-Based Agnostic Boosting Varun Kanade Harvard University (joint work with Adam Tauman Kalai (Microsoft NE))

2. Outline PAC Learning, Agnostic Learning, Boosting Boosting Algorithm and applications (Some) history of boosting algorithms

3. Learning... PAC Learning [Valiant '84] Learning from examples e.g. halfspaces Learning from membership queries. eg. DNF (x 1 ٨ x 7 ٨ x 13 ) ۷ (x 2 ٨ x 7 ) ۷ (x 3 ٨ x 8 ٨ x 10 ) Agnostic Learning [Haussler '92, Kearns, Schapire, Sellie '94] No assumptions about correctness of labels Challenging Noise Model + + + + ++ + + + - - - - - - - - - - -

4. Different Learning Scenarios PAC Learning Random classification noise PAC learning Agnostic Learning + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + - ---- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5. Boosting... Weak learning → Strong Learning (accuracy 51% → accuracy 99%) Great for proving theory results [Schapire '89] Potential-based algorithms work great in practice e.g Adaboost [Freund and Schapire '95] But, suffer in the presence of noise.

6. Boosting at work... H = h 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - +-

7. Boosting at work... H = a 1 h 1 + a 2 h 2 H = h 1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + -

8. Boosting at work... H = a 1 h 1 + a 2 h 2 H = h 1 H = a 1 h 1 + a 2 h 2 + a 3 h 3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + -

9. Boosting at work... H = a 1 h 1 + a 2 h 2 H = h 1 H = a 1 h 1 + a 2 h 2 + a 3 h 3 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

10. Boosting Algorithms Repeat Find a weakly accurate hypothesis Change weights of examples Take “weighted majority” of weak classifiers to obtain a highly accurate hypothesis Guaranteed to work when labelling is correct.

11. Our Work New simple boosting algorithm Better Theoretical Guarantees – agnostic setting Does not change weights of examples Application: Simplifies agnostic learning results

12. Independent Work Distribution-specific agnostic boosting. - Feldman (ICS 2010)

13. Agnostic Learning Assumption that data is perfectly labelled is unrealistic Make no assumption on how the data is labelled Goal: Try to fit as well as best from a concept class

14. Agnostic Learning Instance Space X Distribution μ over X f : X → [-1, 1] (labelling function) D = (μ, f) over X × {-1, 1} f(x) = E (x, y)~D [y | x] Oracle Access + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

15. Agnostic Learning err D (c) = Pr (x, y)~D [c(x) != y] cor(c, D) = E (x, y)~D [c(x)y] = E x ~ D [c(x) f(x)] opt = max c є C cor(c, D) Find h satisfying cor(h, D) ≥ opt - ε + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PAC Learning is the special case when labels match exactly with a concept in C (f є C), (opt = 1)

16. Key def: Weak Agnostic Learning opt may be as low as 0 Algorithm W is a (γ,ε 0 )-weak agnostic learner for distribution μ if for every f: X → [-1, 1] and access to D = (μ, f) it outputs a hypothesis w such cor(w,D) ≥ γ opt – ε 0 Weak learner for specific distribution gives strong learner for same distribution

17. Boosting Theorem If C is (γ, ε 0 )-weakly agnostically learnable under distribution μ over X, then AgnosticBoost returns hypothesis h such that cor(h) ≥ opt – ε – (ε 0 /γ) The boosting algorithm makes O(1/(γε) 2 ) calls to weak learner

18. Boosting Algorithm Input: (x 1, y 1 ),...., (x mT, y mT ) 1. Let H 0 = 0 2. For t = 1, …, T Relabel (x (t-1)m+1, y (t-1)m+1 ), …, (x tm, y tm ) Let g t be the output of weak learner W on relabelled data by weights w t (x,y) h t = Either g t or – sign(H t-1 ) γ t = 1/m ∑ i h t (x i ) y i w t (x i,y i ) H t = H t-1 + γ t h t

19. Boosting Algorithm Input: (x 1, y 1 ),...., (x mT, y mT ) 1. Let H 0 = 0 2. For t = 1, …, T Relabel (x (t-1)m+1, y (t-1)m+1 ), …, (x tm, y tm ) Let g t be the output of weak learner W on relabelled data by weights w t (x,y) h t = Either g t or – sign(H t-1 ) γ t = 1/m ∑ i h t (x i ) y i w t (x i,y i ) H t = H t-1 + γ t h t Relabelling idea: [Kalai K Mansour '09]

20. Potential Function φ(z) = 1 – z if z ≤ 0 φ(z) = e -z otherwise Ф(H,D) = E (x,y)~D [φ(yH(x))] Ф(H 0,D) = 1; Ф ≥ 0 (same potential function as Madaboost)

21. Proof Strategy Relabelling weights: w(x, y) = -φ'(yH(x)) R D, w – draw (x,y) from D return (x, y) with probability (1+w(x,y))/2 else return (x, -y) cor(h, R D, w ) = E (x, y)~D [h(x) y w(x, y)] + + +-+- +-+- + +-+- + -+-+ -+-+ -+-+ - -+-+ - - - - -+-+ - - + + + + + + + - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + - - - - - - - - - -

22. Analysis Sketch... φ(yH(x))-φ(yH(x) + γ(yh(x))) ≥ γh(x)y(-φ'(yH(x)))- γ 2 /2 Taking expectations we get the required result. Lemma: For any x and δ in reals |φ(x+ δ) - φ(x) – φ'(x) δ| ≤ δ 2 /2 Let H: X → R, h: X → [-1, 1], γ є R and distribution μ over X. Relabel according to w(x, y) = - φ'(yH(x)) Φ(H, D) – Φ(H + γ h, D) ≥ γ cor(h, R D, w ) – γ 2 /2

23. Analysis Sketch... Only relabelling data points correctly classified by h – so advantage of c only increases … For distribution D over X × {-1, 1} and c, h : X → {-1, 1} and relabelling function w(x,y) satisfying w(x, -h(x))=1 cor(c,R D,w ) – cor(h,R D,w ) ≥ cor(c, D) – cor(h, D)

24. Analysis Sketch … Suppose cor(sign(H t ),D) ≤ opt – ε – (ε 0 /γ) and let c є C achieve opt Relabel using w(x,y) = - φ'(yH t (x)).. and hence cor(c, R D, w ) – cor(sign(H t ), R D, w ) ≥ ε + ( ε 0 / γ ) If cor(c, R D, w ) ≥ ε/2 + ε 0 / γ … weak learning else cor(-sign(H t ), R D, w ) ≥ ε/2

25. Analysis Sketch … Can always find a hypothesis h satisfying.. cor(h, R D, w ) ≥ (εγ/ 2) Reduces potential at least by Ω( (εγ) 2 ) In less that T = O(1 /(εγ) 2 ) steps it must be the case that cor (sign(H t ), D) ≥ opt – ε - (ε 0 /γ)

26. Applications Finding low degree Fourier coefficients is a weak learner for halfspaces under the uniform distribution. [Klivans, O'Donnell, Servedio '04] Get agnostic halfspace algorithm [Kalai, Klivans, Mansour, Servedio '05] Goldreich-Levin/Kushilevitz-Mansour algorithm for parities is a weak learner for decision trees. Get agnostic decision tree learning algorithm [Gopalan, Kalai, Klivans '08]

27. Applications Agnostically learning C under a fixed distribution μ gives PAC learning of disjunctions of C, under same distribution μ [Kalai, K, Mansour '09] Agnostically learning decision trees gives a PAC learning algorithm for DNF. [Jackson '95]

28. (Some) History of Boosting Algorithms Adaboost [Freund and Schapire '95] works in practice! Also simple, adaptive and has other nice properties. Random noise worsens performance considerably Madaboost [Domingo and Watanabe '00] corrects for this somewhat by limiting penalty for wrong labels.

29. (Some) History of Boosting Algorithms Random Classification Noise: Boosting using branching programs. [Kalai and Servedi '03] No potential-based boosting algorithm. [Long and Servedio '09]

30. (Some) History of Boosting Algorithms Agnostic Boosting [Ben-David, Long, Mansour '01] - different definition of weak learner - no direct comparison, full boosting not possible Agnostic Boosting and Parity Learning. [Kalai, Mansour and Verbin '08] - uses branching programs - give algorithm to learn parity with noise under all distributions in time 2 O(n/log n)

31. Conclusion Simple potential-function based boosting algorithm for agnostic learning “Right” definition of weak agnostic learning Boosting without changing distributions Applications: simplifies agnostic learning algorithms for halfspaces and decision trees, a different way to view PAC-learning DNFs

32. Boosting W is a γ-weak learner for concept class C for all distributions μ Can W be used as a black-box to strongly learn C under every distribution μ? [Kearns and Valiant '88] Yes – boosting. [Schapire '89, Freund '90, Freund and Schapire '95]

33. Agnostic Learning Halfspaces Low-degree algorithm is a (1/n d, ε 0 )-agnostic weak- learner for halfspaces under uniform distribution over the boolean cube. [Klivans-O'Donnell-Servedio '04] Halfspaces over boolean cube are agnostically learnable using examples only for constant ε. [Kalai-Klivans-Mansour- Servedio '05]

34. Learning Decision Trees Kushilevitz-Mansour (Goldreich-Levin) algorithm for learning parities using membership queries is a (1/ t, ε 0 )-agnostic weak learner for decision trees. [Kushilevitz-Mansour '91] Decision trees can be agnostically learned under uniform distribution using membership queries. [Gopalan- Kalai-Klivans '08]

35. PAC Learning DNFs Theorem: If C is agnostically learnable under distribution μ then disjunctions of C is PAC-learnable under μ. [Kalai-K-Mansour '09] DNFs are PAC-learnable under uniform distribution using membership queries. [Jackson 95]

36. PAC Learning Instance Space X Distribution μ over X Concept class C c є C Oracle access - + - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

37. PAC Learning Output hypothesis h error = Pr x ~ μ [h(x) != c(x)] With high probability (1–δ) h is approximately (error ≤ ε) correct - + - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

38. PAC Learning Instance space X, distribution μ over X, concept class C over X cor μ (h, c) = E x ~ μ [h(x) c(x)] = 1 – 2 err μ (h, c) C is PAC learnable under distribution μ, if for all c є C, ε, δ > 0, exists algorithm A which in polytime outputs h such that cor μ (h, c) ≥ 1- ε with probability at least 1 – δ strongly err D (h, c) ≤ ε/2

39. Weak PAC Learning Instance space X, distribution μ over X, concept class C over X Algorithm W is a γ-weak PAC learner for distribution μ if it outputs a hypothesis w such cor μ (w, c) ≥ γ err μ (w, c) ≤ (1– γ)/2 : somewhat better than random guessing

40. Key def: Weak Agnostic Learning opt = min c є C Pr (x, y) ~D [ c(x) != y] cor(c, D) = E (x, y) ~D [ c(x) y] = E x ~ μ [c(x) f(x)] cor(C, D) = max c є C cor(c, D) = 1 – 2 opt opt may be as low as 0 Algorithm W is a (γ,ε 0 )-weak agnostic learner for distribution μ if for every f: X → [-1, 1] and access to D = (μ, f) it outputs a hypothesis w such cor(w,D) ≥ γ cor(C,D) – ε 0

41. $\gamma$ → γ $\times$ → × $\mu$ → μ $\epsilon$ → ε $\gequal$ → ≥ $\sum$ → ∑ $\phi$ → φ $\Bigphi$ → Ф $\lequal$ → ≤ $\delta$ → δ $\in$ → ∈ $\wedge$ → ٨ $\vee$ → ۷