MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947548407 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.12787

The Theory Behind Overfitting, Cross Validation, Regularization, Bagging, and Boosting: Tutorial

2019· preprint· en· W2947548407 on OpenAlexaff
Benyamin Ghojogh, Mark Crowley

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingBoosting (machine learning)Early stoppingArtificial intelligenceAdaBoostGradient boostingMachine learningEstimatorMathematicsSupport vector machineCross-validationGeneralization errorComputer scienceEnsemble learningRegularization (linguistics)Bias of an estimatorRandom forestAlgorithmStatisticsMinimum-variance unbiased estimatorArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this tutorial paper, we first define mean squared error, variance, covariance, and bias of both random variables and classification/predictor models. Then, we formulate the true and generalization errors of the model for both training and validation/test instances where we make use of the Stein's Unbiased Risk Estimator (SURE). We define overfitting, underfitting, and generalization using the obtained true and generalization errors. We introduce cross validation and two well-known examples which are $K$-fold and leave-one-out cross validations. We briefly introduce generalized cross validation and then move on to regularization where we use the SURE again. We work on both $\ell_2$ and $\ell_1$ norm regularizations. Then, we show that bootstrap aggregating (bagging) reduces the variance of estimation. Boosting, specifically AdaBoost, is introduced and it is explained as both an additive model and a maximum margin model, i.e., Support Vector Machine (SVM). The upper bound on the generalization error of boosting is also provided to show why boosting prevents from overfitting. As examples of regularization, the theory of ridge and lasso regressions, weight decay, noise injection to input/weights, and early stopping are explained. Random forest, dropout, histogram of oriented gradients, and single shot multi-box detector are explained as examples of bagging in machine learning and computer vision. Finally, boosting tree and SVM models are mentioned as examples of boosting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207