log 1
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Israel > Tel Aviv District > Tel Aviv (0.04)
- Asia > China (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Israel > Tel Aviv District > Tel Aviv (0.04)
- Asia > China (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Bavaria > Upper Bavaria > Munich (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- Asia > China > Hunan Province > Changsha (0.04)
- North America > Canada > British Columbia > Vancouver (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Oceania > New Zealand > North Island > Auckland Region > Auckland (0.04)
- Europe > Russia > Northwestern Federal District > Leningrad Oblast > Saint Petersburg (0.04)
- (2 more...)
A Proofs of Linear Case Throughout the appendix, for ease of notation, we overload the definition of the function d
The proof of this lemma requires Lemma A.1, which characterizes the distribution of the residual By Pinsker's inequality, this implies d By Lemma A.1, we have E[ X ( null w w The proof is inspired by Theorem 11.2 in [20], with modifications to our setting. First, we construct a "ghost" dataset The most challenging aspect of the ReLU setting is that we do not have an expression for the TV suffered by the MLE, such as Lemma 4.2 in the linear case. The proof of this Lemma, as well as other Lemmas in this section, can be found in Appendix B.1. Using Lemma B.2 and Lemma B.3, we can form a uniform bound, such that all A straight forward combination of Lemma 4.3 and Lemma B.4 gives the following Theorem. Now we can apply Bernstein's inequality (Theorem 2.10 of [8]).