=================================================================================

Following is the steps for Proving Probability Bounds

Prove for Individual Hypotheses (h):

• First, consider a single hypothesis h from the hypothesis class H.
• Prove that, for this individual hypothesis h, the following holds:

          ----------------------------------- [3947a]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Complementary inequality:

Original Inequality: For an individual hypothesis ℎ from the hypothesis class H, the original inequality asserts:

          P(Event) ≥ 1 − δ

Complementary Inequality: The complementary inequality asserts that the opposite event occurs with high probability:

          P(Opposite Event) ≤ δ

In other words, the complementary inequality focuses on the probability of the event not occurring with high probability.

This is a common approach in probability analysis. If you're ensuring that an event occurs with high probability, the complementary inequality helps quantify the probability of the opposite event (not occurring) with high probability.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take a Union Bound Over All h:

• Next, extend the proof to the entire hypothesis class H by applying a union bound.
• Show that the probability of the union of events (the deviations for all individual hypotheses h) is bounded by the sum of the probabilities of these individual events.

To prove this for an individual hypothesis h, we can use concentration inequalities like Hoeffding's inequality or Chernoff bounds, which are often used in statistical learning theory to bound deviations between empirical and true risks.

Let's use Hoeffding's inequality as an example:

Hoeffding's Inequality states that for any random variables X₁​, X₂, … , X_n​ independently drawn from a distribution with range [a, b], and their average , the following holds for any ϵ > 0:

          ----------------------------------- [3947b]

In our case, we can consider X_i​ as the loss for a single data point when using hypothesis h, and Xˉ as the empirical risk L^(h).

Now, we can apply Hoeffding's Inequality with the equation below:

          ------------------------------------------------- [3947c]

Now, we set a and b based on the range of the loss function:

          ----------- [3947d]

We notice that ϵ is the same as the one defined in our original inequality, then we simplify the expression within the exponent:

          ----------- [3947e]

Substituting this result into Hoeffding's Inequality, and then simplify the right-hand side:

          ----------- [3947f]

Now, notice that the right-hand side of this inequality is the same as δ (the desired level of confidence):

          ----------- [3947g]

This step is crucial because it demonstrates that the probability of the event on the left-hand side (the deviation between empirical and true risk) is bounded by the desired confidence level δ.

Now, the final conclusion is that for the individual hypothesis h, the probability of the event is indeed bounded by 1 − δ., and we can observe that the right-hand side is equal to δ, which verifies the desired inequality for the individual hypothesis h in Equation 3947a.

Take a Union Bound Over All h:

Now, we extend the result to the entire hypothesis class H. Since there are potentially infinitely many hypotheses in H, we consider the worst-case scenario where we have a countably infinite number of hypotheses.

To apply a union bound over all hypotheses, we sum the probabilities for each individual hypothesis:

          ----------- [3947h]

By the properties of the union bound, this probability is bounded by:

          ----------- [3947i]

Therefore, we have established the probability bound for the entire hypothesis class H.

If you try to express that the absolute difference between the true risk L(θ) and the empirical risk L^(θ) decreases as n (the sample size) increases, you might want to use the Big O notation. The correct way to express this would be:

          ----------- [3947j]

wehre,

• L(θ)represents the true (population) risk associated with a particular model parameter θ. This is the ideal, but often unknown, measure of how well the model performs on the entire population.
• L^(θ)represents the empirical risk associated with the same model parameter θ, estimated from a finite sample of data. This is a measure of how well the model performs on the observed sample.
• is the sample size, indicating how many data points were used to estimate the empirical risk.
• is Big O notation. It's a way of describing how the absolute difference between the true risk and the empirical risk scales with the sample size n.

The expression states that the absolute difference between the true risk and the empirical risk is bounded by a term that decreases as n increases. Specifically, it decreases at a rate of . This is a common result in statistical learning theory, indicating that as you collect more data (larger n), your empirical risk estimate becomes a better approximation of the true risk.

1. Decreasing Error: As you collect more data (increase n), the difference between the empirical risk and the true risk becomes smaller. This indicates that your empirical risk estimate gets closer to the true risk as you gather more information.

2. Rate of Convergence: The term ​ represents the rate at which this difference decreases as the sample size increases. Specifically, it decreases as the square root of the sample size. This is a common behavior in statistics and machine learning, where larger sample sizes lead to more accurate estimates.

3. Big O Notation: Using O notation, we're expressing that the difference between the two risks behaves no worse than . In other words, it's an upper bound on how much the error between the empirical and true risks can be as the sample size grows.

Therefore, Equation 3947j summarizes that, as you gather more data, your empirical risk estimate becomes a better and better approximation of the true risk, and the rate of improvement is characterized by.

However, please note that the Big O notation is typically used to describe the upper bound of the difference. If you want to describe the convergence behavior more precisely, you may use limit notation, which would be:

          ----------- [3947k]

This notation states that as the sample size (n) approaches infinity, the absolute difference between the true risk and the empirical risk converges to zero, indicating that the empirical risk becomes an increasingly accurate estimate of the true risk as you collect more data.

In statistical modeling and machine learning:

1. Parameterization: When you parameterize a model, you define a set of parameters (often denoted as θ) that represent the model's internal characteristics or configuration. These parameters can include coefficients, weights, hyperparameters, or any other variables that influence the behavior of the model.

2. Model Representation: The parameterization defines how the model is represented mathematically. For example, in linear regression, the parameterization involves defining the coefficients for each feature. In a neural network, it involves specifying the weights and biases for each layer.

3. Learning from Data: During the training or learning process, the goal is to find the values of these parameters (θ) that best fit the observed data. This involves adjusting the parameters so that the model's predictions closely match the actual outcomes in the training dataset.

4. Generalization: Once the model is trained, it can generalize to make predictions on new, unseen data based on the learned parameter values. These parameter values capture the "knowledge" or "information" the model has gained from the training data.

Therefore, when you parameterize a model, you indeed introduce the parameter θ, which represents the internal configuration of the model. The process of training the model involves finding the optimal values for these parameters to minimize the difference between the model's predictions and the actual data.

With Hoeffding inequality, when you have a specific scenario where you are dealing with a set of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables X_i, X₂, … , X_n​ that are bounded within the closed interval [0, 1]:

1. Independence and Identical Distribution (i.i.d.): Here, we assumes that the random variables X_i, X₂, … , X_n​ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.). This is a key assumption for applying Hoeffding's inequality because it ensures that the random variables are drawn from the same underlying distribution and that their behaviors are not dependent on each other.

2. Bounded Range: In this specific scenario, a_i=0 and b_i​ = 1 for all i. This means that each random variable X_i​ is bounded within the closed interval [0, 1]. Hoeffding's inequality is applicable when you have random variables that are bounded within a known range. By specifying a_i​ = 0 and b_i​ = 1, you are correctly defining the bounds for each X_i.

3. Large Sample Size: Hoeffding's inequality becomes particularly useful and accurate as the sample size (� n) increases. It provides a bound on the probability of large deviations between the sample mean and the true mean. While the statement doesn't explicitly mention the sample size, Hoeffding's inequality is generally applied with larger sample sizes to make the bound more meaningful.

Under these conditions, you can correctly apply Hoeffding's inequality to bound the probability of observing a large deviation between the sample mean Xˉ and the true mean for random variables bounded within the closed interval [0, 1]. The specified bounds for this scenario would indeed be [0, 1], meaning that the probability of observing a deviation outside this range is bounded by the properties of Hoeffding's inequality.

Based on Hoeffding Inequality at page3973 and page3957, we have,

          ------------------------------------ [3947l]

Based on Union Bound, we have,

          ------------------------------------ [3947m]

where,

Good even has hypothesis,

          ------------------------------------ [3947n]

Now, we extend it for everything in S. With Lipschitzness at page3931, we can have: if l((x, y), θ) is K-Lipschitzness in θ, then L(θ) and L^(θ) are both K-Lipschitzness.

Based on ε-cover theory at page3934, we have,

          ------------------------------------ [3947o]

In combination of Inequality 3947o and Lipschitzness, we then have,

          ------------------------------------ [3947p]

          ------------------------------------ [3947q]

We know,

          --------------- [3947r]

The first and third terms on the righ-hand side of Equation 3947r are about differences between θ and θ₀. Therefore, the values of both terms are less than Kε, and the second term on the right-hand side of the equation is less than because θ₀ is in C. Then,

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [3947s]

And,

          -------------------------------------------------------- [3947t]

Let's set,

          -------------------------------------------------------- [3947u]

Then, we get,

          -------------------------------------------------------- [3947v]

Based on the discussion above, the log-cover size is,

          -------------------------------- [3947w]

K is inside the log, so that it is not sensitive to the choice of K.

Assuming (note they are very rough assumptions),

          -------------------------------- [3947x]

          -------------------------------- [3947y]

Then,

         
                            -------------------------------- [3947z]

There, we have,

          -------------------------------- [3947aa]

Here, generalization error (refer to page3930) is given by.

          -------------------------------- [3947ab]

The first term in the bracket is from the finite hypothesis case, while the second term is discretization error, (see page3929) coming from the K-Lipschitzness. Since the first term depends on log(1/ϵ) and increases very slowly as ϵ goes to 0, and the second term depends on ϵ, there is trading off between the two. Therefore, sometime, you can ignore the second term when ϵ is close to 0.

If you have bigger H (meaning worse bounds), then you need to have more samples. H typically represents the hypothesis space or the complexity of the model you are using. When you have a more complex model (bigger H), it has the potential to fit the training data more closely, but it also increases the risk of overfitting, meaning that the model may not generalize well to unseen data.

To illustrate this concept with an equation, you can use the classic bias-variance trade-off in the context of empirical risk minimization (ERM). The expected prediction error (EPE) of a machine learning model can be decomposed into three components:

          EPE = Bias^2 + Variance + Irreducible Error ------------------------------ [3947ac]

1. Bias^2: This term represents how far off, on average, the predictions of your model are from the true values. It captures the bias or underfitting of the model. A more complex model (bigger H) can potentially reduce bias because it has the capacity to fit the training data more closely.

2. Variance: This term represents how much the predictions for a given data point vary across different training sets. It captures the model's sensitivity to the noise in the training data. A more complex model typically has higher variance because it can fit the noise in the data, leading to overfitting.

3. Irreducible Error: This term represents the inherent noise or randomness in the data that cannot be reduced no matter how complex your model is.

Now, the relationship between model complexity (H), sample size (N), and the bias-variance trade-off can be illustrated as follows:

• With a bigger H (more complex model), you can potentially reduce bias, leading to a lower bias^2 term in the EPE equation.

• However, with a bigger H, you also increase variance, leading to a higher variance term in the EPE equation.

To control the trade-off between bias and variance, you need more data (larger N). More data helps to stabilize the variance by providing the model with a better understanding of the underlying patterns in the data and reducing its sensitivity to noise.

Therefore, when you have a bigger H (worse bounds in terms of overfitting risk), you typically need more samples (larger N) to ensure that the model generalizes well and strikes a balance between bias and variance. This is a fundamental concept in machine learning and statistical learning theory.

============================================

Illustration of the application of Hoeffding's inequality for a set of random variables bounded within the closed interval [0, 1]. This script calculates the probability of the sample mean deviating from the true mean by a certain amount and compares it to the bound provided by Hoeffding's inequality. We also specify a deviation threshold (ϵ) and calculate the actual probability of deviation. You can adjust the value of ϵ to observe how the actual probability of deviation compares to the bound provided by Hoeffding's inequality for different deviation thresholds. Code:
         
       Output:    
         
         

The equations and inequalities for the various components used in the script are given below:

Sample Mean ( Xˉ):

• The sample mean is calculated as the average of the random variables:

          -------------------------------------------------------------- [3947l]

True Mean (μ):

• The true mean represents the actual mean of the random variables (known in this example):

          -------------------------------------------------- [3947n]

Deviation Threshold (ϵ):

• The deviation threshold is a user-specified value that defines the maximum allowable difference between the sample mean and the true mean that you want to consider. It is set as:

          -------------------------------------------------- [3947o]

Actual Probability of Deviation:

• The actual probability of deviation is the probability that the absolute difference between the sample mean and the true mean exceeds the deviation threshold. It is calculated as:

          ----------------------------- [3947p]

Here, 1(.) is the indicator function, which equals 1 if the condition inside is true and 0 otherwise.

Deviation Probability (Actual):

• This term represents the actual probability of deviation.

Deviation Probability (Hoeffding Bound):

• The deviation probability based on Hoeffding's inequality is given by:

          ----------------------------- [3947q]

This is the probability of observing a deviation greater than or equal to ϵ between the sample mean and the true mean, as bounded by Hoeffding's inequality.

============================================

If H is fixed (meaning the hypothesis class is fixed and not changing), and the randomness comes from a dataset that goes into the empirical risk L^, and if a_i​ = 0 and b_i​ = 1 for all i, then the probability bound based on Hoeffding's inequality would be:

          ----------------------------- [3947r]

1. Hypothesis Class Fixed (H is fixed): This means that the set of hypotheses in the class H is predetermined and does not change during the analysis.

2. Randomness from Dataset: The randomness comes from the dataset used to compute the empirical risk L^. In machine learning, this dataset typically consists of observed input-output pairs used for training or evaluation.

3. a_i = 0 and b_i: This specifies that each individual random variable X_i (which corresponds to a hypothesis in the context of empirical risk minimization) is bounded within the closed interval [0, 1].
4. : This is the probability that the absolute deviation between the empirical risk and its expected value exceeds a specified threshold ϵ.
5. ϵ: The deviation threshold, indicating the maximum allowable difference between the empirical risk and its expected value.
6. n: The sample size, representing the number of data points in the dataset used to compute L^.
7. : This is the bound on the probability of such a deviation, as provided by Hoeffding's inequality.

The sum of these events represents the event that multiple hypotheses ℎ h fail to satisfy the condition . We'll discuss the probability of this union and how it relates to the individual probabilities P(E_h) and P(∪_hE_h).         

Individual Probabilities P(E_h):

• For a single hypothesis ℎ h, the probability of failure to satisfy the condition is:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947s]

• .The complement event E_h^c​ is the event that a single hypothesis ℎ h does not fail:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947t]

• For each individual hypothesis ℎ h, we have P(E_h), representing the probability that hypothesis ℎ fails to satisfy the condition.
• These probabilities are independent of each other unless there is an underlying correlation between the hypotheses. In general, if each hypothesis ℎ h is evaluated independently, their probabilities are not correlated.

Union of Individual Failures P(∪_hE_h​ ):

• The union of failure events represents the probability that at least one hypothesis ℎ h fails to satisfy the condition:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947u]

• This is the complement of the event where none of the hypotheses fail.
• P(∪_hE_h​ ) represents the probability that at least one hypothesis ℎ h fails to satisfy the condition.
• This probability is influenced by the individual probabilities P(E_h​ ) .
• When hypotheses are independent, meaning that the failure of one hypothesis does not affect the failure of others, you can use the principle of complementary probability in Equation 3947u.
• If hypotheses are correlated, the union probability may be affected differently.

Sum of the Events :

• represents the event that multiple hypotheses ℎ h fail to satisfy the condition. The correlation between these events depends on the specific relationship between the hypotheses.
• The sum of the events represents the event that multiple hypotheses ℎ h fail to satisfy the condition:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947v]

• This event occurs when two or more hypotheses fail.
• If hypotheses are independent, meaning that the failure of one hypothesis does not affect the failure of others, then the sum of the events is a count of independent events.
• In such cases, you can use statistical techniques for counting independent events.
  

Now, let's relate these concepts:

• is the probability that at least one hypothesis fails.
• is the probability that none of the hypotheses fail.

If you want to find the probability that two or more hypotheses fail (i.e., the sum of the events), it can be expressed as:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947w]

where,
          is the probability that multiple hypotheses fail to satisfy the condition. It's the complement of the event where at least one hypothesis fails and the event where none of the hypotheses fail.

Independence: When hypotheses are independent, individual probabilities P(E_h) are not correlated with each other, and the union probability and the sum probability depend on the individual probabilities but are not directly correlated.

Correlation: If there is a correlation between the hypotheses, meaning that the failure of one hypothesis affects the failure of others, then the probabilities may be correlated. In such cases, more advanced statistical techniques may be needed to analyze the relationship between the events.

The exact correlations and dependencies between these probabilities depend on the specific context and assumptions made about the hypotheses and events being considered.

Now, we have:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947x]

where,:

• δ: This is a parameter or variable representing a probability threshold or level of confidence.

• : This is an expression that depends on the size of the hypothesis class (∣H∣), the sample size (n), and a chosen value of ϵ.

• ∣H∣ is the size of the hypothesis class.
• n is the sample size.

Then, we have:

          ---------------------------------------------- [3947y]

As discussed above, the behavior of in terms of how it scales with n (sample size) depends on the specific scenario and assumptions in machine learning and statistical analysis. It can indeed vary between cases where it scales as 1/n and cases where it scales as1/n^1/2, and there can be other cases as well. These differences are often related to different assumptions and conditions. Let's explore each case and the associated conditions:

1. :

Assumption: This case typically arises when we assume that the excess risk converges to zero as the sample size (n) increases. It implies that as you collect more data, the difference between the risk of the learned model (h^) and the risk of the best possible model (ℎ*) decreases at a rate of 1/n.

Conditions: This assumption is often associated with strong convergence properties of the learning algorithm and may require certain regularity conditions on the data and model class. It's common in scenarios where the law of large numbers or central limit theorems can be applied.

2. :

Assumption: This case arises when we assume that the excess risk converges to zero at a slower rate, specifically 1/n^1/2, as the sample size (n) increases.

Conditions: This assumption may occur in scenarios where there is more uncertainty in the learning process, and the excess risk decreases more slowly with increasing sample size. It can be related to situations where there is noise in the data, model complexity, or limited information in the data.

3. Other Cases Related to n:

There can be other cases as well, where the rate of convergence of with respect to n is different. For example, you might encounter cases where the excess risk converges as 1/n²or with some other dependence on n.

Conditions: These cases depend on the specific assumptions and characteristics of the problem, including the choice of learning algorithm, the nature of the data, and the complexity of the model.

Therefore, the scaling of with respect to n depends on the assumptions and conditions of the specific problem. Stronger assumptions and more favorable conditions can lead to faster convergence (e.g., 1/n), while more challenging scenarios may result in slower convergence (e.g., 1/n^1/2). The choice of algorithm, the presence of noise in the data, the model complexity, and other factors all play a role in determining the rate of convergence.