Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Addressing Parameter Choice Issues in Unsupervised Domain Adaptation by Aggregation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.01281 v1 pith:Q3XEEQWC submitted 2023-05-02 stat.ML cs.LGcs.NAmath.NA

classification stat.MLcs.LGcs.NAmath.NA
keywords domaindatasetserrorseveraladaptationaggregationleastmethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the problem of choosing algorithm hyper-parameters in unsupervised domain adaptation, i.e., with labeled data in a source domain and unlabeled data in a target domain, drawn from a different input distribution. We follow the strategy to compute several models using different hyper-parameters, and, to subsequently compute a linear aggregation of the models. While several heuristics exist that follow this strategy, methods are still missing that rely on thorough theories for bounding the target error. In this turn, we propose a method that extends weighted least squares to vector-valued functions, e.g., deep neural networks. We show that the target error of the proposed algorithm is asymptotically not worse than twice the error of the unknown optimal aggregation. We also perform a large scale empirical comparative study on several datasets, including text, images, electroencephalogram, body sensor signals and signals from mobile phones. Our method outperforms deep embedded validation (DEV) and importance weighted validation (IWV) on all datasets, setting a new state-of-the-art performance for solving parameter choice issues in unsupervised domain adaptation with theoretical error guarantees. We further study several competitive heuristics, all outperforming IWV and DEV on at least five datasets. However, our method outperforms each heuristic on at least five of seven datasets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools