A Probabilistic Covariate Shift Assumption for Domain Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of domain adaptation algorithms is to establish a learner, trained on labeled data from a source domain, that can classify samples from a target domain, in which few or no labeled data are available for training. Covariate shift, a primary assumption in several works on domain adaptation, assumes that the labeling functions of source and target domains are identical. We present a domain adaptation algorithm that assumes a relaxed version of covariate shift where the assumption that the labeling functions of the source and target domains are identical holds with a certain probability. Assuming a source deterministic large margin binary classifier, the farther a target instance is from the source decision boundary, the higher the probability that covariate shift holds. In this context, given a target unlabeled sample and no target labeled data, we develop a domain adaptation algorithm that bases its labeling decisions both on the source learner and on the similarities between the target unlabeled instances. The source labeling function decisions associated with probabilistic covariate shift, along with the target similarities are concurrently expressed on a similarity graph. We evaluate our proposed algorithm on a benchmark sentiment analysis (and domain adaptation) dataset, where state-of-the-art adaptation results are achieved. We also derive a lower bound on the performance of the algorithm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".