How Local Should a Learning Method Be?

Abstract

We consider the question of why modern machine learning methods like support vector machines outperform earlier non-parametric techniques like k- NN. Our approach investigates the locality of learning methods, i.e., the tendency to focus mainly on the close-by part of the training set when constructing a new guess at a particular location. We show that, on the one hand, we can expect all consistent learning methods to be local in some sense; hence if we consider consistency a desirable property then a degree of locality is unavoidable. On the other hand, we also claim that earlier methods like k-NN are local in a more strict manner which implies performance limitations. Thus, we argue that a degree of locality is necessary but that this should not be overdone. Support vector machines and related techniques strike a good balance in this matter, which we suggest may partially explain their good performance in practice.

Cite

Text

Zakai and Ritov. "How Local Should a Learning Method Be?." Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, 2008.

Markdown

[Zakai and Ritov. "How Local Should a Learning Method Be?." Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, 2008.](https://mlanthology.org/colt/2008/zakai2008colt-local/)

BibTeX

@inproceedings{zakai2008colt-local,
  title     = {{How Local Should a Learning Method Be?}},
  author    = {Zakai, Alon and Ritov, Yaacov},
  booktitle = {Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory},
  year      = {2008},
  pages     = {205-216},
  url       = {https://mlanthology.org/colt/2008/zakai2008colt-local/}
}