Beyond H-Divergence: Domain Adaptation Theory With Jensen-Shannon Divergence.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reveal the incoherence between the widely-adopted empirical domain adversarial training and its generally-assumed theoretical counterpart based on $\mathcal{H}$-divergence. Concretely, we find that $\mathcal{H}$-divergence is not equivalent to Jensen-Shannon divergence, the optimization objective in domain adversarial training. To this end, we establish a new theoretical framework by directly proving the upper and lower target risk bounds based on joint distributional Jensen-Shannon divergence. We further derive bi-directional upper bounds for marginal and conditional shifts. Our framework exhibits inherent flexibilities for different transfer learning problems, which is usable for various scenarios where $\mathcal{H}$-divergence-based theory fails to adapt. From an algorithmic perspective, our theory enables a generic guideline unifying principles of semantic conditional matching, feature marginal matching, and label marginal shift correction. We employ algorithms for each principle and empirically validate the benefits of our framework on real datasets.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it