Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 65 references

Phase Transition in Nonparametric Minimax Rates for Covariate Shifts on Approximate Manifolds

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The pointwise minimax squared error in covariate-shift regression switches between two rates at a single manifold-noise threshold.

desk verdict New minimax phase transition with a solid lower bound, but the LPR upper bound has a real gap in the small-rho target-dominated regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00889 v1 pith:3KSQQKKY submitted 2025-07-01 math.ST stat.TH

Yuyao Wang , Nabarun Deb , Debarghya Mukherjee This is my paper
classification math.STstat.TH MSC 62G0562G0862C20
keywords covariateshiftapproximatemanifoldminimaxratesphasetransitionlocalpolynomialregressiontransferlearningHöldersmoothnessadaptiveestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Under covariate shift, the paper derives the exact pointwise minimax rate for estimating a $\beta$-Hölder regression function at a target point when the target covariates lie near, but not exactly on, a $d$-dimensional manifold inside the source support in $\mathbb{R}^D$. Because the target measure is supported on a thin neighborhood of the manifold, a density ratio with the source need not exist, and the analysis replaces the density ratio with the geometric distance $\rho_n$. The minimax rate changes sharply at the threshold $\kappa_n^\star = (n_P^{(2\beta+d)/(2\beta+D)} + n_Q)^{-1/(2\beta+d)}$: for $\rho_n$ above it the ambient dimension $D$ controls the rate, while for $\rho_n$ below it the intrinsic dimension $d$ controls the rate and the source sample contributes like $n_P^{(2\beta+d)/(2\beta+D)}$ extra target points. A local polynomial regression estimator attains both rates, and an adaptive version attains them up to logarithmic factors when $\beta$ and $d$ are unknown.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\rho_n$-approximate manifold $M_{\rho_n} = \{x \in [-1,1]^D : \inf_z \|x - \phi(z)\| \le \rho_n\}$, generated as $X = \phi(V) + \rho_n U$ with $\phi:[-1,1]^d \to [-1,1]^D$ bi-Lipschitz and with densities of $V$ and $U$ bounded below. The proof runs through the local polynomial regression normalizer $\psi_n = n_P/n + (n_Q/n)(\rho_n \vee h_n)^{d-D}$ and a family of integral bounds (Lemma A.1) that count how much kernel mass the source and target place in a bandwidth-$h_n$ cube around $x^\star$. These bounds make the target contribution equal to a $d$-dimensional mass when $h_n \ge \rho_n$ and to $\rho_n^{d-D}$ times a $D$-dimensional mass when $h_n \le \rho_n$. Balancing the bias term $h_n^{2\beta}$ against the variance $[n_P h_n^D + n_Q(\rho_n \vee h_n)^{d-D} h_n^D]^{-1}$ yields exactly the two rate regimes and the threshold $\kappa_n^\star$.

What would settle it

On a synthetic $d=1$ circle (or $d=2$ surface) embedded in $\mathbb{R}^D$, generate target covariates with noise level $\rho_n$ scaling as $n_Q^{-a}$ for a grid of exponents $a$ around $1/(2\beta+d)$, run the local polynomial estimator with the two bandwidth rules, and compare the empirical MSE slopes to the two predicted rates; a mismatch in the exponent or in the exponent at which the slopes switch would refute the phase-transition claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the pointwise minimax squared error at a target point $x^\star$ is $(n_P + n_Q \rho_n^{d-D})^{-2\beta/(2\beta+D)}$ when $\rho_n$ is above $\kappa_n^\star$, and $(n_P^{(2\beta+d)/(2\beta+D)} + n_Q)^{-2\beta/(2\beta+d)}$ when $\rho_n$ is below it. In the first regime the target samples behave like $n_Q\rho_n^{d-D}$ equivalent points in the ambient space, so they join the source samples in a $D$-dimensional rate. In the second regime the target covariates behave as if they lay exactly on the manifold, so the problem is $d$-dimensional and the source sample inflates $n_Q$ to an effective size $n_P^{(2\beta+d)/(2\beta+D)} + n_Q$. Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 prove, respectively, that a local polynomial regression estimator with the bandwidth in (2.8) attains these rates and that no estimator can do better. A lower bound is obtained by a two-point Le Cam construction using localized Hölder bumps at scale $h_n$.

Load-bearing premise

The theorems assume a single global coordinate chart $\phi$ covering the whole target manifold with uniform bounds on $\nabla\phi^\top\nabla\phi$ and with target covariates generated as $X=\phi(V)+\rho_n U$; if real target manifolds require several charts or have strongly varying curvature, the stated rates and threshold are not proven and could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Source samples provably increase the effective target sample size to $n_P^{(2\beta+d)/(2\beta+D)} + n_Q$ when $\rho_n$ is below the threshold, which is how transfer helps without a density ratio.
  • Above the threshold, transfer still helps, but through the combination $n_P + n_Q\rho_n^{d-D}$ rather than through the raw target count.
  • Setting $n_P=0$ gives new minimax rates for noisy-manifold regression, including a phase transition at $\rho_n \asymp n_Q^{-1/(2\beta+d)}$.
  • The pooled local polynomial estimator does not need to know which observations are source or target, because one bandwidth is used for both samples.
  • Combining a nearest-neighbor intrinsic-dimension estimator with Lepski's method yields nearly optimal rates when $\beta$ and $d$ are unknown.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is whether multi-chart manifolds shift the threshold by chart-overlap constants; the paper asserts but does not prove this extension.
  • The mechanism suggests that a direct estimator of the local noise level $\rho_n$, obtained from target points' distances to a fitted manifold, could be plugged into the bandwidth rule and make the phase transition visible in practice.
  • The same bias-variance split should apply to other local estimators such as kernel regression, $k$-nearest neighbors, and neural networks, giving the same threshold but possibly different constants.
  • For target distributions that are mixtures of approximate manifolds at different distances, one would expect each component to have its own $\rho$ and its own threshold, an extension not considered in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies pointwise estimation of a beta-Holder regression function at a target point under covariate shift, where the target covariates are generated as X = phi(V) + rho_n U with phi a d-dimensional chart in R^D and the source covariates admit a D-dimensional density. The main results, Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, assert that the minimax squared error is (n_P + n_Q rho_n^{d-D})^{-2 beta/(2 beta + D)} when rho_n is above a threshold and (n_P^{(2 beta + d)/(2 beta + D)} + n_Q)^{-2 beta/(2 beta + d)} when rho_n is below it, and that a single D-variate local polynomial regression estimator attains both rates. Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.1 propose a fully adaptive version using dimension estimation and Lepski's method. Numerical experiments illustrate the benefit of transfer when the target lies on a low-dimensional manifold inside the source support.

Significance. The claimed phase transition is a natural and potentially important refinement of existing transfer-learning and manifold-regression results: it extends Pathak et al. (2022) from beta in (0,1] and rho_n=0 to general beta>0 and rho_n>0, and Remark 2.1's target-only noisy-manifold rates appear new. The paper is largely self-contained and the lower-bound strategy via Le Cam alternatives is appropriately connected to the phases. However, the upper-bound proof has a rank-deficiency gap in the small-rho regime, the adaptivity theorem's statement and proof are mismatched, and the lower-bound argument invokes an unstated Gaussian likelihood assumption. These are substantial but localized correctness issues; if repaired, the contribution would be significant for the nonparametric transfer-learning literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Lemma A.2, Case (ii)] The uniform lower bound lambda_min(B_n) >= m > 0 is not true when rho_n/h_n -> 0. For d < D and l >= 1, the polynomial vector z(nabla phi(0) s) spans only binom(d+l,l) directions, strictly fewer than dim z = binom(D+l,l); the normal directions enter only through t_n(u-u_0) with t_n = rho_n/h_n -> 0, so lambda_min(B_n) -> 0. In the exactly singular case rho_n=0 the linearized design is rank-deficient, and with curvature restored the design eigenvalue is O(h_n^2). Consequently, when target samples dominate (notably n_P=0 in Remark 2.1), the variance bound 1/(n_P h_n^D + n_Q (rho_n vee h_n)^{d-D} h_n^D) used in Theorem 2.1 does not follow, and the claimed attainment of the small-rho rate by the ambient LPR estimator is unproven. This is load-bearing for the upper half of the central claim.
  2. [Section 2.4, Theorem 2.3 and Appendix C] Theorem 2.3 states E[|f_adp(x_star)-f_star(x_star)|^2 / psi_n(beta)] <= C with psi_n(beta) equal to the squared rate (up to log factors). The proof in Appendix C, however, proves only E[|f_adp(x_star)-f_star(x_star)| / delta_{n,i_star}] <= C, where delta_{n,i_star} = h_{n,i_star}^{beta}; an L1 bound does not imply the displayed L2 bound. Additionally, the Lepski threshold is written as C_l h_{n,eta} in the theorem statement and Algorithm 1, but as C_l delta_{n,i} = C_l h_{n,i}^{beta_i} in the proof; these two thresholds are not equivalent for eta != 1. Please correct the statement or give an L2 proof.
  3. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B.3)-(B.4)] The proof uses KL(P_0|P_1) = E_P[(f_0 - f_1)^2] and the analogous identity for Q. This identity is specific to Gaussian conditional likelihoods with equal variance; Assumption 3 only bounds fourth moments and does not specify the noise distribution. As written, the minimax lower bound in Theorem 2.2 is not derived for the stated model. Please add the noise model used for the hard instances (e.g., Y = f(X) + epsilon with epsilon ~ N(0, sigma^2)) or replace the KL calculation by a valid total-variation/Hellinger bound under the stated moment assumptions.
  4. [Section 2.1, Assumption 2(2)] The model assumes a single global chart phi:[-1,1]^d -> [-1,1]^D satisfying (2.2), and the text after (2.2) asserts without proof that all results extend to a finite local-chart setting 'with minor bookkeeping'. Since the target point x_star need not lie in the range of a single global chart, and since the local-chart setting changes constants and boundary terms in Lemmas A.1 and A.2, this is not an entirely formal matter. Please either state and prove a local-chart version or explicitly restrict the claims to the global-chart case.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 2.1] In the final display, the bound h_n^{2 beta} <~ (n_P + n_Q rho_n^{d-D})^{-2 beta/(2 beta + d)} should have denominator 2 beta + D to be consistent with Eq. (2.8); as printed it is dimensionally inconsistent with the chosen h_n.
  2. [Section 2.4 and Appendix C] The candidate set B is written as {0 ≡ beta_0 < beta_min ≡ beta_1 < …}, but beta_0 = 0 is never used in the bandwidth formula (C.1) and would be undefined there; remove beta_0 or define its treatment.
  3. [Section 3] The descriptions of Figures 2-4 are informal ('performs on par', 'beneficial'); adding error bars or confidence intervals and stating the number of Monte Carlo repetitions in the captions would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the minimax rates are derived from a self-contained bias-variance and Le Cam argument, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are Theorem 2.1 (upper bound via local polynomial regression) and Theorem 2.2 (lower bound via Le Cam's two-point method). The upper bound proceeds through a standard bias-variance decomposition: Lemma A.1 gives moment bounds under P and Q, Lemma A.2 asserts a uniform eigenvalue lower bound for the normalized design matrix, Lemma A.3 gives concentration of the design matrix, and Lemma A.4 bounds the fourth moment of the score vector. The final rate is obtained by balancing h^{2β} against 1/(n_P h^D + n_Q (ρ∨h)^{d-D} h^D), with the bandwidth chosen according to (2.8). This is an honest mathematical derivation: no parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction, and the target rate is not inserted into the estimator. The lower bound constructs explicit alternatives f_{0,n} and f_{1,n} and bounds the KL divergence using the same Lemma A.1 estimates; again the claimed minimax rate is derived, not assumed. The paper does cite prior work, including Pathak et al. (2022), Kpotufe and Martinet (2021), Bickel and Li (2007), and Farahmand et al. (2007), but these citations are external results used for comparison, for the intrinsic-dimension estimator, and for Lepski's method; none of the load-bearing steps in the proof reduces to a self-citation by the present authors. The skeptical concern about Lemma A.2's small-ρ eigenvalue argument is a potential proof gap or correctness issue, but a gap is not circularity: even if the uniform eigenvalue bound fails in that regime, the claimed rate would be unproven rather than equivalent to its inputs by construction. The adaptive estimator's use of Farahmand et al.'s dimension estimator and Lepski's method is standard external machinery, and the log-factor penalty is explicitly acknowledged. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are fitted; all constants are universal, and the bandwidth is a closed-form function of problem parameters. The central claim rests on the covariate-shift identity, the global approximate-manifold chart assumption, Holder smoothness, and standard concentration tools. The adaptive results additionally rely on the consistency of an external dimension estimator.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: conditional mean functions are identical across source and target (EP[Y|X] = EQ[Y|X]).
    This is the covariate-shift definition enabling transfer; without it, source data do not identify f* at the target.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2(1): source density p is strictly positive and uniformly Lipschitz in a neighborhood of x*.
    Ensures source samples fall near x* so they carry local information; if p vanishes near x*, transfer cannot help.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2(2): target covariates satisfy X = phi(V) + rho_n U with a single global bi-Lipschitz chart phi satisfying (2.2), and V and U have bounded below Lipschitz densities.
    This is the approximate-manifold model; the global single-chart form is stronger than needed and the claimed local-chart extension is not proven.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: f* is locally beta-Holder with beta > 0.
    Smoothness controls the bias-variance tradeoff and determines how much curse of dimensionality is reduced.
  • ad hoc to paper Kernel K is symmetric, supported on [-1,1]^D, and bounded below and above (2.3).
    Technical condition for the local polynomial estimator; standard kernels satisfy it, and the lower bound is used to control eigenvalues.
  • domain assumption For adaptive results, the intrinsic dimension estimator satisfies P(dhat = d) -> 1, e.g., Farahmand et al. (2007) k-NN estimators (2.10).
    The dimension-adaptive step inherits consistency from an external estimator; the approximate noise is assumed small enough for that estimator to recover d.
  • standard math Standard inequalities: Bernstein, Le Cam/Pinsker, Weyl's inequality, and concentration arguments.
    Used in Appendices A-E without proof; standard in nonparametric minimax literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase Transition in Nonparametric Minimax Rates for Covariate Shifts on Approximate Manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KSQQKKY

@misc{pith2026250700889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase Transition in Nonparametric Minimax Rates for Covariate Shifts on Approximate Manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KSQQKKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00889}
}
read the original abstract

We study nonparametric regression under covariate shift with structured data, where a small amount of labeled target data is supplemented by a large labeled source dataset. In many real-world settings, the covariates in the target domain lie near a low-dimensional manifold within the support of the source, e.g., personalized handwritten digits (target) within a large, high-dimensional image repository (source). Since density ratios may not exist in these settings, standard transfer learning techniques often fail to leverage such structure. This necessitates the development of methods that exploit both the size of the source dataset and the structured nature of the target. Motivated by this, we establish new minimax rates under covariate shift for estimating a regression function in a general H\"older class, assuming the target distribution lies near -- but not exactly on -- a smooth submanifold of the source. General smoothness helps reduce the curse of dimensionality when the target function is highly regular, while approximate manifolds capture realistic, noisy data. We identify a phase transition in the minimax rate of estimation governed by the distance to the manifold, source and target sample sizes, function smoothness, and intrinsic versus ambient dimensions. We propose a local polynomial regression estimator that achieves optimal rates on either side of the phase transition boundary. Additionally, we construct a fully adaptive procedure that adjusts to unknown smoothness and intrinsic dimension, and attains nearly optimal rates. Our results unify and extend key threads in covariate shift, manifold learning, and adaptive nonparametric inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Minimax rates under different transfer regimes, with the effective sample size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of proposed and target only estimators at two representative evaluation points. Top row: MSE curves across varying nQ for x ⋆ Int and x ⋆ to, respectively. Bottom row: MSE boxplots at a fixed nQ = 1000. 3.2. Known Smoothness and Intrinsic Dimension In this section, we consider the setting when the target covariates lie on a d-dimensional manifold embedded in the space R D, where d < D. In the simulation, … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison of Proposed and Target-only estimators in the manifold setting. Left: MSE as a function of target sample size nQ; Right: Error distribution at a fixed nQ = 1000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MSE vs. nQ for three estimators. Our result is summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baktashmotlagh, M., M. T. Harandi, B. C. Lovell, and M. Salzmann (2014). Domain adaptation on the statistical manifold. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp.\ 2481--2488

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Belkin, M. and P. Niyogi (2003). Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data representation. Neural computation\/ 15\/ (6), 1373--1396

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Blitzer, K

    Ben-David, S., J. Blitzer, K. Crammer, A. Kulesza, F. Pereira, and J. W. Vaughan (2010). A theory of learning from different domains. Machine learning\/ 79 , 151--175

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Bickel, P. J. and B. Li (2007). Local polynomial regression on unknown manifolds. Lecture Notes-Monograph Series\/ , 177--186

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Cai, C., T. T. Cai, and H. Li (2024). Transfer learning for contextual multi-armed bandits. The Annals of Statistics\/ 52\/ (1), 207--232

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chen, and J

    Chai, J., E. Chen, and J. Fan (2025). Deep transfer q -learning for offline non-stationary reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04870\/

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Newey, W

    Chernozhukov, V., M. Newey, W. K. Newey, R. Singh, and V. Srygkanis (2023). Automatic debiased machine learning for covariate shifts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04527\/

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Anthimopoulos, L

    Christodoulidis, S., M. Anthimopoulos, L. Ebner, A. Christe, and S. Mougiakakou (2016). Multisource transfer learning with convolutional neural networks for lung pattern analysis. IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics\/ 21\/ (1), 76--84

    work page 2016

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Mansour, and M

    Cortes, C., Y. Mansour, and M. Mohri (2010). Learning bounds for importance weighting. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 23

    2010

  2. [10]

    Mohri, and A

    Cortes, C., M. Mohri, and A. M. Medina (2019). Adaptation based on generalized discrepancy. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 20\/ (1), 1--30

    2019

  3. [11]

    Flamary, D

    Courty, N., R. Flamary, D. Tuia, and A. Rakotomamonjy (2016). Optimal transport for domain adaptation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence\/ 39\/ (9), 1853--1865

    2016

  4. [12]

    David, S. B., T. Lu, T. Luu, and D. P \'a l (2010). Impossibility theorems for domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pp.\ 129--136. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings

    2010

  5. [13]

    Fan, J. (1992). Design-adaptive nonparametric regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 87\/ (420), 998--1004

    1992

  6. [14]

    Fan, J., N. E. Heckman, and M. P. Wand (1995). Local polynomial kernel regression for generalized linear models and quasi-likelihood functions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.\/ 90\/ (429), 141--150

    1995

  7. [15]

    Farahmand, A. m., C. Szepesv\' a ri, and J.-Y. Audibert (2007). Manifold-adaptive dimension estimation. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning , ICML '07, New York, NY, USA, pp.\ 265–272. Association for Computing Machinery

    2007

  8. [16]

    Mitter, and H

    Fefferman, C., S. Mitter, and H. Narayanan (2016). Testing the manifold hypothesis. Journal of the American Mathematical Society\/ 29\/ (4), 983--1049

    2016

  9. [17]

    Genovese, C. R., M. Perone-Pacifico, I. Verdinelli, and L. Wasserman (2012). Manifold estimation and singular deconvolution under H ausdorff loss. Ann. Statist.\/ 40\/ (2), 941--963

    2012

  10. [18]

    Habrard, F

    Germain, P., A. Habrard, F. Laviolette, and E. Morvant (2013). A pac-bayesian approach for domain adaptation with specialization to linear classifiers. In International conference on machine learning , pp.\ 738--746. PMLR

    2013

  11. [19]

    Guan, H. and M. Liu (2021). Domain adaptation for medical image analysis: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering\/ 69\/ (3), 1173--1185

    2021

  12. [20]

    Hotz, V. J., G. W. Imbens, and J. H. Mortimer (2005). Predicting the efficacy of future training programs using past experiences at other locations. Journal of econometrics\/ 125\/ (1-2), 241--270

    2005

  13. [21]

    Huo, J., S. Jin, W. Li, J. Wu, Y.-K. Lai, Y. Shi, and Y. Gao (2021). Manifold alignment for semantically aligned style transfer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pp.\ 14861--14869

    2021

  14. [22]

    H \"u tter, J.-C. and C. Mao (2017). Notes on adaptive estimation with lepski’s method

    2017

  15. [23]

    Jiang, J. and C. Zhai (2007). Instance weighting for domain adaptation in nlp. ACL

    2007

  16. [24]

    Jiao, Y., G. Shen, Y. Lin, and J. Huang (2023). Deep nonparametric regression on approximate manifolds: Nonasymptotic error bounds with polynomial prefactors. The Annals of Statistics\/ 51\/ (2), 691--716

    2023

  17. [25]

    Zadik, and M

    Kalavasis, A., I. Zadik, and M. Zampetakis (2024). Transfer learning beyond bounded density ratios. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11963\/

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Langer, and U

    Kohler, M., S. Langer, and U. Reif (2023). Estimation of a regression function on a manifold by fully connected deep neural networks. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference\/ 222 , 160--181

    2023

  19. [27]

    Kpotufe, S. and G. Martinet (2021). Marginal singularity and the benefits of labels in covariate-shift. The Annals of Statistics\/ 49\/ (6), 3299--3323

    2021

  20. [28]

    LeCam, L. (1973). Convergence of Estimates Under Dimensionality Restrictions . The Annals of Statistics\/ 1\/ (1), 38 -- 53

    1973

  21. [29]

    Lee, J. M. (2006). Riemannian manifolds: an introduction to curvature , Volume 176. Springer Science & Business Media

    2006

  22. [30]

    Lepski, O. V. and V. G. Spokoiny (1997). Optimal pointwise adaptive methods in nonparametric estimation. The Annals of Statistics\/ 25\/ (6), 2512--2546

    1997

  23. [31]

    Lepskii, O. (1991). On a problem of adaptive estimation in gaussian white noise. Theory of Probability & Its Applications\/ 35\/ (3), 454--466

    1991

  24. [32]

    Li, S., T. T. Cai, and H. Li (2022). Transfer learning for high-dimensional linear regression: Prediction, estimation and minimax optimality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/ 84\/ (1), 149--173

    2022

  25. [33]

    Grandvalet, F

    Li, X., Y. Grandvalet, F. Davoine, J. Cheng, Y. Cui, H. Zhang, S. Belongie, Y.-H. Tsai, and M.-H. Yang (2020). Transfer learning in computer vision tasks: Remember where you come from. Image and Vision Computing\/ 93 , 103853

    2020

  26. [34]

    Liang, T. (2024). Blessings and curses of covariate shifts: adversarial learning dynamics, directional convergence, and equilibria. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 25\/ (140), 1--27

    2024

  27. [35]

    Long, M., J. Wang, G. Ding, S. J. Pan, and S. Y. Philip (2013). Adaptation regularization: A general framework for transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering\/ 26\/ (5), 1076--1089

    2013

  28. [36]

    Pathak, and M

    Ma, C., R. Pathak, and M. J. Wainwright (2023). Optimally tackling covariate shift in RKHS-based nonparametric regression . The Annals of Statistics\/ 51\/ (2), 738 -- 761

    2023

  29. [37]

    Mohri, and A

    Mansour, Y., M. Mohri, and A. Rostamizadeh (2009). Domain adaptation: Learning bounds and algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:0902.3430\/

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Meil a , M. and H. Zhang (2024). Manifold learning: What, how, and why. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application\/ 11\/ (1), 393--417

    2024

  31. [39]

    Mohri, M. and A. Mu \ n oz Medina (2012). New analysis and algorithm for learning with drifting distributions. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory , pp.\ 124--138. Springer

    2012

  32. [40]

    Moon, K. R., D. Van Dijk, Z. Wang, S. Gigante, D. B. Burkhardt, W. S. Chen, K. Yim, A. v. d. Elzen, M. J. Hirn, R. R. Coifman, et al. (2019). Visualizing structure and transitions in high-dimensional biological data. Nature biotechnology\/ 37\/ (12), 1482--1492

    2019

  33. [41]

    Narayanan, H. and S. Mitter (2010). Sample complexity of testing the manifold hypothesis. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 23

    2010

  34. [42]

    Pan, S. J. and Q. Yang (2010). A survey on transfer learning. ieee transactions on knowledge and data engineering. 22 (10)\/ 1345

    2010

  35. [43]

    Nanda, and T

    Panigrahi, S., A. Nanda, and T. Swarnkar (2021). A survey on transfer learning. In Intelligent and Cloud Computing: Proceedings of ICICC 2019, Volume 1 , pp.\ 781--789. Springer

    2021

  36. [44]

    Ma, and M

    Pathak, R., C. Ma, and M. Wainwright (2022). A new similarity measure for covariate shift with applications to nonparametric regression. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp.\ 17517--17530. PMLR

    2022

  37. [45]

    Qui \ n onero-Candela, J. (2009). Dataset Shift in Machine Learning . Neural Information Processing series. MIT Press

    2009

  38. [46]

    Rezaei, A., A. Liu, O. Memarrast, and B. D. Ziebart (2021). Robust fairness under covariate shift. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Volume 35, pp.\ 9419--9427

    2021

  39. [47]

    Ruder, S., M. E. Peters, S. Swayamdipta, and T. Wolf (2019). Transfer learning in natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Tutorials , pp.\ 15--18

    2019

  40. [48]

    Schmidt-Hieber, J. (2019). Deep relu network approximation of functions on a manifold. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.00695\/

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Schmidt-Hieber, J. and P. Zamolodtchikov (2024). Local convergence rates of the nonparametric least squares estimator with applications to transfer learning. Bernoulli\/ 30\/ (3), 1845--1877

    2024

  42. [50]

    Shen, Y., C. Gao, D. Witten, and F. Han (2020). Optimal estimation of variance in nonparametric regression with random design. Ann. Statist.\/ 48\/ (6), 3589--3618

    2020

  43. [51]

    Shimodaira, H. (2000). Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function. Journal of statistical planning and inference\/ 90\/ (2), 227--244

    2000

  44. [52]

    Shivakumar, P. G. and P. Georgiou (2020). Transfer learning from adult to children for speech recognition: Evaluation, analysis and recommendations. Computer speech & language\/ 63 , 101077

    2020

  45. [53]

    Sugiyama, M. and M. Kawanabe (2012). Machine learning in non-stationary environments: Introduction to covariate shift adaptation . MIT press

    2012

  46. [54]

    Krauledat, and K.-R

    Sugiyama, M., M. Krauledat, and K.-R. M \"u ller (2007). Covariate shift adaptation by importance weighted cross validation. Journal of Machine Learning Research\/ 8\/ (5)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Nakajima, H

    Sugiyama, M., S. Nakajima, H. Kashima, P. Buenau, and M. Kawanabe (2007). Direct importance estimation with model selection and its application to covariate shift adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 20

    2007

  48. [56]

    Sugiyama, M. and A. J. Storkey (2006). Mixture regression for covariate shift. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 19

    2006

  49. [57]

    Suzuki, S

    Sugiyama, M., T. Suzuki, S. Nakajima, H. Kashima, P. von B\"unau, and M. Kawanabe (2008). Direct importance estimation for covariate shift adaptation. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math.\/ 60\/ (4), 699--746

    2008

  50. [58]

    Tian, Y. and Y. Feng (2023). Transfer learning under high-dimensional generalized linear models. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 118\/ (544), 2684--2697

    2023

  51. [59]

    (2009, 01)

    Tsybakov, A. (2009, 01). Introduction to nonparametric estimation

    2009

  52. [60]

    Vershynin, R. (2018). High-dimensional probability , Volume 47 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. An introduction with applications in data science, With a foreword by Sara van de Geer

    2018

  53. [61]

    Wang, C. and S. Mahadevan (2011). Heterogeneous domain adaptation using manifold alignment. In IJCAI proceedings-international joint conference on artificial intelligence , Volume 22, pp.\ 1541. Citeseer

    2011

  54. [62]

    Wang, J. and Y. Chen (2022). Transfer learning for computer vision. In Introduction to Transfer Learning: Algorithms and Practice , pp.\ 265--273. Springer

    2022

  55. [63]

    Weyl, H. (1912). Das asymptotische V erteilungsgesetz der E igenwerte linearer partieller D ifferentialgleichungen (mit einer A nwendung auf die T heorie der H ohlraumstrahlung). Math. Ann.\/ 71\/ (4), 441--479

    1912

  56. [64]

    Yu, B. M., J. P. Cunningham, G. Santhanam, S. Ryu, K. V. Shenoy, and M. Sahani (2008). Gaussian-process factor analysis for low-dimensional single-trial analysis of neural population activity. Advances in neural information processing systems\/ 21

    2008

  57. [65]

    Zhang, Y., S. Nie, W. Liu, X. Xu, D. Zhang, and H. T. Shen (2019). Sequence-to-sequence domain adaptation network for robust text image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp.\ 2740--2749

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.