We consider the task of identifying the causal parents of a target variable among a set of candidates from observational data. Our main assumption is that the candidate variables are observed in different environments which may, under certain assumptions, be regarded as interventions on the observed system. We assume a linear relationship between target and candidates, which can be different in each environment with the only restriction that the causal structure is invariant across environments. Within our proposed setting we provide sufficient conditions for identifiability of the causal parents and introduce a practical method called L-ICP (Localized Invariant Causal Prediction), which is based on a hypothesis test for parent identification using a ratio of minimum and maximum statistics. We then show in a simplified setting that the statistical power of L-ICP converges exponentially fast in the sample size, and finally we analyze the behavior of L-ICP experimentally in more general settings.

This work investigates formal generalization error bounds that apply to support vector machines (SVMs) in realizable and agnostic learning problems. We focus on recently observed parallels between probably approximately correct (PAC)-learning bounds, such as compression and complexity-based bounds, and novel error guarantees derived within scenario theory. Scenario theory provides nonasymptotic and distributional-free error bounds for models trained by solving data-driven decision-making problems. Relevant theorems and assumptions are reviewed and discussed. We propose a numerical comparison of the tightness and effectiveness of theoretical error bounds for support vector classifiers trained on several randomized experiments from 13 real-life problems. This analysis allows for a fair comparison of different approaches from both conceptual and experimental standpoints. Based on the numerical results, we argue that the error guarantees derived from scenario theory are often tighter for realizable problems and always yield informative results, i.e., probability bounds tighter than a vacuous [0, 1] interval. This work promotes scenario theory as an alternative tool for model selection, structural-risk minimization, and generalization error analysis of SVMs. In this way, we hope to bring the communities of scenario and statistical learning theory closer, so that they can benefit from each other's insights.

Semi-supervised learning is the learning setting in which we have both labeled and unlabeled data at our disposal. This survey covers theoretical results for this setting and maps out the benefits of unlabeled data in classification and regression tasks. Most methods that use unlabeled data rely on certain assumptions about the data distribution. When those assumptions are not met, including unlabeled data may actually decrease performance. For all practical purposes, it is therefore instructive to have an understanding of the underlying theory and the possible learning behavior that comes with it. This survey gathers results about the possible gains one can achieve when using semi-supervised learning as well as results about the limits of such methods. Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions: what are, in terms of improving supervised methods, the limits of semi-supervised learning? What are the assumptions of different methods? What can we achieve if the assumptions are true? As, indeed, the precise assumptions made are of the essence, this is where the survey's particular attention goes out to.

Manifold regularization is a commonly used technique in semi-supervised learning. It enforces the classification rule to be smooth with respect to the data-manifold. Here, we derive sample complexity bounds based on pseudo-dimension for models that add a convex data dependent regularization term to a supervised learning process, as is in particular done in Manifold regularization. We then compare the bound for those semi-supervised methods to purely supervised methods, and discuss a setting in which the semi-supervised method can only have a constant improvement, ignoring logarithmic terms. By viewing Manifold regularization as a kernel method we then derive Rademacher bounds which allow for a distribution dependent analysis. Finally we illustrate that these bounds may be useful for choosing an appropriate manifold regularization parameter in situations with very sparsely labeled data.

Learning performance can show non-monotonic behavior. That is, more data does not necessarily lead to better models, even on average. We propose three algorithms that take a supervised learning model and make it perform more monotone. We prove consistency and monotonicity with high probability, and evaluate the algorithms on scenarios where non-monotone behaviour occurs. Our proposed algorithm $$\text {MT}_{\text {HT}}$$ makes less than $$1\%$$ non-monotone decisions on MNIST while staying competitive in terms of error rate compared to several baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/tomviering/monotone .

While the success of semi-supervised learning (SSL) is still not fully understood, Schölkopf et al. (2012) have established a link to the principle of independent causal mechanisms. They conclude that SSL should be impossible when predicting a target variable from its causes, but possible when predicting it from its effects. Since both these cases are restrictive, we extend their work by considering classification using cause and effect features at the same time, such as predicting a disease from both risk factors and symptoms. While standard SSL exploits information contained in the marginal distribution of all inputs (to improve the estimate of the conditional distribution of the target given in-puts), we argue that in our more general setting we should use information in the conditional distribution of effect features given causal features. We explore how this insight generalises the previous understanding, and how it relates to and can be exploited algorithmically for SSL.

Current methods for covariate-shift adaptation use unlabelled data to compute importance weights or domain-invariant features, while the final model is trained on labelled data only. Here, we consider a particular case of covariate shift which allows us also to learn from unlabelled data, that is, combining adaptation and semi-supervised learning. Using ideas from causality, we argue that this requires learning with both causes, $X_C$, and effects, $X_E$, of a target variable, $Y$, and show how this setting leads to what we call a semi-generative model, $P(Y,X_E|X_C,\theta)$. Our approach is robust to domain shifts in the distribution of causal features and leverages unlabelled data by learning a direct map from causes to effects. Experiments on synthetic data demonstrate significant improvements in classification over purely-supervised and importance-weighting baselines.

We pose the question to what extent a learning algorithm behaves monotonically in the following sense: does it perform better, in expectation, when adding one instance to the training set? We focus on empirical risk minimization and illustrate this property with several examples, two where it does hold and two where it does not. We also relate it to the notion of PAC-learnability.

Plotting a learner's average performance against the number of training samples results in a learning curve. Studying such curves on one or more data sets is a way to get to a better understanding of the generalization properties of this learner. The behavior of learning curves is, however, not very well understood and can display (for most researchers) quite unexpected behavior. Our work introduces the formal notion of risk monotonicity, which asks the risk to not deteriorate with increasing training set sizes in expectation over the training samples. We then present the surprising result that various standard learners, specifically those that minimize the empirical risk, can act nonmonotonically irrespective of the training sample size. We provide a theoretical underpinning for specific instantiations from classification, regression, and density estimation. Altogether, the proposed monotonicity notion opens up a whole new direction of research.

Semi-supervised classification methods try to improve a supervised learned classifier with the help of unlabeled data. In many cases one assumes a certain structure on the data, as for example the manifold assumption, the smoothness assumption or the cluster assumption. Self-training is a method that does not need any assumptions on the data itself. The idea is to use the supervised trained classifier to label the unlabeled points and to enlarge this way the training data. This paper aims to show that a self-training approach with soft-labeling is preferable in many cases in terms of expected loss (risk) minimization. The main idea is to use a soft-labeling to minimize the risk on labeled and unlabeled data together, in which the hard-labeled self-training is an extreme case.