terminate
- North America > United States > California > San Diego County > San Diego (0.04)
- North America > United States > Wisconsin > Dane County > Madison (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Hampshire County > Amherst (0.04)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Montreal (0.04)
- North America > United States > Texas > Travis County > Austin (0.04)
- North America > United States > Colorado (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Italy > Calabria > Catanzaro Province > Catanzaro (0.04)
bbc92a647199b832ec90d7cf57074e9e-Supplemental.pdf
Before defining our algorithm at each iterationt we first lighten our notation with a shorthandba(X) = b(ˆp(t 1)(X),a) (at different iterationt, ba denotes different functions), andb(X) is the vector of (b1(X),,bK(X)). For the intuition of the algorithm, consider the t-th iteration where the current prediction function is ˆp(t 1). Thestatement of the theorem is identical; the proof is also essentially the same except for the use of some new technicaltools. Conversely, if ˆp is LB decision calibrated, then kE[p (X) ˆp(X)|U]k1 = 0 almost surely (because if the expectation of a non-negative random variable is zero, the random variable must be zero almost surely), which implies thatˆp is distributioncalibrated. For BKa we use the VC dimension approach.
- Asia > China > Tianjin Province > Tianjin (0.04)
- Asia > Macao (0.04)
- Asia > China > Liaoning Province > Dalian (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.14)
- Oceania > Australia > New South Wales > Sydney (0.14)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.14)
- (6 more...)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.14)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > Strength High (0.86)