nullnull null
- Europe > Switzerland > Zürich > Zürich (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > New South Wales > Sydney (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.92)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.67)
- Government (1.00)
- Law (0.67)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > China > Hong Kong (0.04)
- North America > United States > Wisconsin > Dane County > Madison (0.04)
- Europe > Austria (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Denmark (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Health & Medicine (0.67)
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (0.45)
- North America > United States > Michigan > Washtenaw County > Ann Arbor (0.14)
- North America > United States > Illinois > Cook County > Chicago (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Japan (0.04)
The Minimax Rate of HSIC Estimation for Translation-Invariant Kernels
Such embeddings induce the so-called maximum mean discrepancy (MMD; [Smola et al., 2007, Gretton et al., 2012]), which quantifies the discrepancy Many estimators for HSIC exist. The classical ones rely on U-statistics or V -statistics [Gretton et al., 2005, Quadrianto et al., 2009, Pfister et al., 2018] and are known to converge at a rate of Lower bounds for the related MMD are known [Tolstikhin et al., 2016], but the existing analysis considers radial kernels and relies on independent Gaussian distributions.
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Karlsruhe Region > Karlsruhe (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Greater London > London (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Health & Medicine (0.68)
- Energy (0.46)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Singapore (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Vision (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks (0.94)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (0.93)
Appendices
Appendix A provides derivations supporting Section 3 in the main paper. In this section we provide detailed derivations of the ST -DGMRF joint distribution, for both first-order transition models (Section A.1) and higher-order transition models (Section A.2). A.1 Joint distribution The LDS (see Section 2.2 and 3.1 in the main paper) defines a joint distribution over system states First, note that Eq. (1) can be written as a set of linear equations x We make use of this property in the DGMRF formulation and in the conjugate gradient method. Eq. 11 is converted into a discrete-time dynamical system by approximating ρ We consider two ST -DGMRF variants that capture different amounts of prior knowledge. DGMRF transition matrices can be parameterized accordingly. The air quality dataset is based on hourly PM2.5 measurements obtained from [ The raw PM2.5 measurements are log-transformed and standardized to zero mean and unit Ca. 50% of the nodes are masked out (purple nodes within We use a simple MLP with one hidden layer of width 16 with ReLU activations and no output non-linearity. The DGMRF parameters are not shared across time, allowing for dynamically changing spatial covariance patterns.
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.14)
- North America > United States > Virginia (0.04)
- North America > United States > Pennsylvania > Allegheny County > Pittsburgh (0.04)
- (2 more...)