=================================================================================

Problem statement:

Suppose I have a probabilistic model parametrized by θ, denoted as p(y|x;θ). Here, y is generated by this model, implying θ*. I'm using subscripts here to differentiate it from the previously defined θ star, which represented the minimizer of the population risk. Initially, they were the same, but now they are different.

To clarify, we assume the existence of a θ* such that the data points yi are generated from conditional xi using this probabilistic model. This is why it's referred to as "well-specified," indicating that your data is generated from this probabilistic model.

In this context, let's assume the loss function is the log likelihood of this probabilistic model: y(i)|x(i) ~ p(y|x,θ), and the loss function is defined as l((x(i), y(i)), θ) = -logp(y(i)|x(i); θ).

To provide an example, consider logistic regression where the log likelihood corresponds to the cross-entropy loss. Thus, this becomes your loss function.

Then, you can observe that θ*, which minimizes the population loss, is the same as θx, which is responsible for generating our data. When you have an infinite amount of data, θ star becomes the minimizer in the infinite data case. Consequently, you can recover the ground truth, θ star, and θx are essentially identical in this scenario.

Analysis of the problem above:

The project above, involving the calculation of excess risk, the introduction of a regularization term, and considering the behavior of the model as the dataset size approaches infinity, can be referred to as an "asymptotic approach" or an "asymptotic analysis" for the reasons below:

1. Asymptotic Analysis: In mathematics and statistics, "asymptotic" refers to the behavior of a function or a system as some parameter (in this case, the dataset size) becomes very large or approaches infinity. Asymptotic analysis is often used to study the limiting behavior of mathematical models under certain conditions.

2. Consideration of Infinite Data: In the project, we are analyzing how the model behaves as the dataset size becomes very large (infinite data). This is a classic example of an asymptotic analysis because we are interested in understanding the model's behavior in the limit as the dataset size grows without bound.

3. Regularization and Complexity Control: The introduction of the regularization term (L2 regularization) is also a common aspect of asymptotic analysis. Regularization methods are used to control the behavior of models as they approach certain limits or extremes, such as overfitting when dealing with large datasets.

4. Balancing Trade-offs: Our project involves finding a balance between fitting the training data well and controlling the complexity of the model. This balance often becomes more critical as the dataset size grows, and asymptotic analysis can help us understand how the model behaves in this limit.

Solution to the problem above:

To find the gradient of the loss function with respect to θ, we can use the chain rule and the fact that the loss function is defined as:

          l((x(i), y(i)), θ) = -log p(y(i)|x(i); θ) ------------------------------------------ [3967a]

The gradient of this loss function with respect to θ can be calculated as follows:

          ∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) = -∇θ log p(y(i)|x(i); θ) ------------------------------------------ [3967b]

Now, let's break down the gradient calculation further:

1. Calculate the gradient of log likelihood with respect to θ:

   ∇θ log p(y(i)|x(i); θ) ------------------------------------------ [3967c]

2. Negate the result since the loss is defined as the negative log likelihood:

   -∇θ log p(y(i)|x(i); θ) ------------------------------------------ [3967d]

The specific form of ∇θ log p(y(i)|x(i); θ) will depend on the probabilistic model you are using (e.g., logistic regression, linear regression, neural network, etc.) and the likelihood function associated with it. Different models will have different expressions for ∇θ log p(y(i)|x(i); θ).

For example, in logistic regression, you would have:

          ∇θ log p(y(i)|x(i); θ) = (y(i) - σ(θ^T x(i))) * x(i) ----------------------------------------- [3967e]

where σ(z) is the sigmoid function, θ^T represents the transpose of θ, and x(i) represents the input features for the ith data point.

The gradient ∇θl((x(i), y(i)), θ) is computed for each data point in your dataset, and you can use this information to update θ using gradient-based optimization algorithms like gradient descent or its variants to minimize the loss and find the optimal θ that fits your data.

The condition for the gradient of the loss function to be 0 corresponds to the point where the loss function reaches its minimum (or a local minimum) with respect to the parameter θ. In machine learning, this is typically the point where you have found the optimal parameter values that best fit the training data.

To find this condition mathematically, you can set the gradient of the loss function equal to zero and solve for θ:

          ∇θl((x(i), y(i)), θ) = 0 ----------------------------------------- [3967f]

However, it's important to note that in practice, the loss function may have multiple local minima, and finding the global minimum can be challenging. This is where optimization algorithms like gradient descent come into play.

The specific equation for ∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) depends on the form of your loss function and the probabilistic model you are using. For instance, in logistic regression with the cross-entropy loss, the gradient equation would be:

          ∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) = (y(i) - σ(θ^T x(i))) * x(i) ----------------------------------------- [3967g]

Setting this gradient to zero and solving for θ:

          0 = (y(i) - σ(θ^T x(i))) * x(i) ----------------------------------------- [3967h]

This equation doesn't have a simple closed-form solution for θ because of the sigmoid function σ(θ^T x(i)). Therefore, iterative optimization algorithms like gradient descent are used to find the minimum by iteratively updating θ until convergence to a local minimum.

You can calculate the expected gradient of the loss over the population at θ* = 0. This is essentially finding the expected value of the gradient of the loss function with respect to θ when θ = θ* = 0, assuming the data is generated from the probabilistic model.

Let's denote the expected value as E[∇θ l((x, y), θ)] at θ* = 0. To calculate this expectation, we need to consider the joint distribution of the data (x, y) under the probabilistic model, and then compute the gradient with respect to θ and take the expectation.

The expectation is computed as follows:

          E[∇θ l((x, y), θ)] = ∫∫ ∇θ l((x, y), θ) * p(x, y; θ) dx dy, ----------------------------------------- [3967i]

where p(x, y; θ) is the joint probability distribution of the data under the model.

In practice, the specific form of p(x, y; θ) depends on the probabilistic model you're using. You would need to integrate over the entire space of possible data points (x, y) according to the model's probability distribution.

Without knowing the exact form of p(x, y; θ) for your specific model, it's not possible to provide a numerical value for this expectation at θ* = 0. You would need to have a well-defined model and its corresponding joint probability distribution to perform this calculation. Once you have that, you can compute the expected gradient over the population at θ* = 0 by integrating as shown above.

To calculate the covariance of the gradient of the loss with respect to θ, you need to compute the expected value of the outer product of the gradient vectors. The covariance matrix of the gradient vectors is a measure of how the components of the gradient vectors vary together.

Let's denote the gradient of the loss for a single data point as ∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ). Assuming θ* = 0, we want to calculate the covariance of these gradients over the entire population. Let's denote the covariance matrix as Σ:

          Σ = E[(∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) - E[∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ)]) * (∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) - E[∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ)])^T] --------- [3967j]

In words, this equation calculates the expected value of the outer product of the difference between the individual gradients and their expected values.

The above expression involves calculating expectations over the entire population, which requires knowing the joint distribution of (x, y) under the probabilistic model and the gradient calculation. The specific form of p(x, y; θ) and ∇θ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) depends on your model, so you would need to use those details to perform the computation.

It's important to note that calculating the covariance of gradients in practice can be quite complex and may require numerical methods or specialized software, especially if you're dealing with high-dimensional parameter spaces and complex models.

The covariance of the gradient, E[∇l((x, y), θ*)], represents the expected covariance matrix of the gradients of the loss function with respect to θ evaluated at the true parameter values θ*.

Mathematically, you can express it as:

          Cov[∇l((x, y), θ*)] = E[(∇l((x, y), θ*) - E[∇l((x, y), θ*)]) * (∇l((x, y), θ*) - E[∇l((x, y), θ*)])^T] --------- [3967k]

where:

• ∇l((x, y), θ*) is the gradient of the loss function with respect to θ, evaluated at the true parameter values θ*.
• E[∇l((x, y), θ*)] is the expected value of this gradient over the population, which means it's the average gradient over all possible data points that could be generated from the model with θ* as the true parameter.
• The outer product of the difference between the individual gradients and their expected values is taken, and then you calculate the expected value of this outer product.

To compute this covariance matrix, you would need to know the joint distribution of (x, y) under your probabilistic model, as well as the exact form of the loss function and its gradient with respect to θ. Then, you can use these details to perform the calculation. The specific form of p(x, y; θ) and ∇l((x, y), θ*) depends on your model, so you would need to use those details to perform the computation.

Note that calculating this covariance can be complex and often requires numerical methods or specialized software, especially for complex models and loss functions.

To simplify the covariance of the gradient, E[∇l((x, y), θ*)], you need to have certain conditions or assumptions in place. Assuming that the data (x, y) is independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), and that the loss function has a particular structure, you can simplify the covariance as follows:

          Cov[∇l((x, y), θ*)] = E[(∇l((x, y), θ*) - E[∇l((x, y), θ*)]) * (∇l((x, y), θ*) - E[∇l((x, y), θ*)])^T] --------- [3967l]

Since the data is assumed to be i.i.d., you can treat each data point as statistically independent, which means that the covariance between gradients for different data points is zero. Therefore, you can simplify further as:

          Cov[∇l((x, y), θ*)] = Var[∇l((x, y), θ*)] -------------------------------------- [3967m]

Here, Var[∇l((x, y), θ*)] represents the variance of the gradient of the loss function with respect to θ, evaluated at θ*.

This simplification assumes that there is no covariance between the gradients for different data points, which is a common assumption when dealing with i.i.d. data. However, it's essential to note that this simplification might not hold for more complex scenarios or specific models. The actual calculation of the variance would still depend on the exact form of the loss function and the gradient with respect to θ.

You can further simplify the covariance of the gradient, E[∇l((x, y), θ*)] in Equation [3967m] under the assumption of i.i.d. data. Let's consider a common scenario where the data points (x, y) are drawn independently from the same distribution. In this case, you can compute the variance of the gradient for a single data point and treat it as representative of the entire population. This simplifies the expression further:

          Cov[∇l((x, y), θ*)] = Var[∇l((x(i), y(i)), θ*)] for any data point (x(i), y(i)) ------------------------- [3967n]

Therefore, under the assumption of i.i.d. data, you can compute the variance of the gradient for a single data point, and it is representative of the covariance for the entire population. However, note that this simplification relies on the specific assumption of i.i.d. data and may not hold in all cases. The actual calculation of the variance still depends on the exact form of the loss function and the gradient with respect to θ for a single data point.

If you assume that the gradient is zero on average (i.e., E[∇l((x, y), θ*)] = 0), which is often the case in optimization problems where you're trying to find the minimum of the loss function, you can simplify further:

          Cov[∇l((x, y), θ*)] = E[∇l((x, y), θ*)^2] ----------------------- [3967o]

This simplification essentially means that you're looking at the expected value of the squared gradient. It's a measure of how much the gradient values fluctuate around zero. Note that these simplifications are based on specific assumptions and may not apply to all scenarios. The actual calculation of E[∇l((x, y), θ*)^2] would depend on the specific form of the loss function and the probabilistic model you're using.

The excess risk, also known as the expected risk or generalization error, measures how well a model trained on a sample of data (empirical risk) performs on unseen data (population risk). It can be calculated as the difference between the population risk and the empirical risk:

          Excess Risk = Population Risk - Empirical Risk ----------------------- [3967p]

In the context of the gradient covariance discussion above, we can make some general statements:

1. Empirical Risk (Empirical Loss): This is the average loss over your training dataset, typically calculated as:

   Empirical Risk = (1/N) * Σ l((x(i), y(i)), θ), ----------------------- [3967q]

   where N is the number of training data points, and l((x(i), y(i)), θ) is the loss function for a single data point (x(i), y(i)).

2. Population Risk (Expected Risk): This is the expected value of the loss over all possible data points that can be generated from the underlying probabilistic model, and it's typically calculated as:

   Population Risk = E[l((x, y), θ*)], ----------------------- [3967r]

   where θ* represents the true or optimal parameter values that you're trying to approximate.

To compute the excess risk, you would calculate both the population risk and the empirical risk based on your data and model:

          Excess Risk = E[l((x, y), θ*)] - (1/N) * Σ l((x(i), y(i)), θ), ----------------------- [3967s]

The excess risk quantifies how well your model generalizes from the training data to unseen data. If the excess risk is small, it indicates that your model has good generalization performance. If it's large, it suggests that your model may overfit the training data and not perform well on new, unseen data. Note that the specific calculation of the population risk and empirical risk depends on the probabilistic model, the loss function, and the data. You'll need to use the appropriate expressions and statistical tools to compute them based on your specific problem.

You can add a regularization term to the calculation of the excess risk to account for model complexity. This term helps prevent overfitting by penalizing overly complex models. One common regularization term used is the L2 regularization, which adds a penalty based on the magnitude of the model's parameters (weights or coefficients).

The modified formula for excess risk with L2 regularization (also known as Ridge regularization) would be:

          Excess Risk = E[l((x, y), θ*)] - (1/N) * Σ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) + λ * ||θ||^2, ----------------------- [3967t]

where,

1. E[l((x, y), θ*)]: Population risk, as previously explained, measures the expected loss over all possible data points.

2. (1/N) * Σ l((x(i), y(i)), θ): Empirical risk, which is the average loss over your training dataset.

3. λ: The regularization parameter, which controls the strength of regularization. Higher values of λ result in stronger regularization.

4. ||θ||^2: The L2 norm (Euclidean norm) of the model's parameter vector θ. This term penalizes large parameter values.

The goal of adding this regularization term is to balance fitting the training data well (minimizing the empirical risk) with keeping the model's parameters small (minimizing the magnitude of θ). This helps prevent overfitting by discouraging the model from becoming too complex and fitting noise in the data.

By optimizing the loss function with this regularization term, you aim to find a parameter vector θ that not only minimizes the training error but also ensures that the model's parameters remain reasonably small, leading to better generalization to unseen data. The value of λ is typically chosen through techniques like cross-validation to find the right trade-off between fitting the training data and regularization.

Let's simplify the excess risk equation using the probabilistic model:

1. Population Risk (Expected Risk): In the context of the probabilistic model, the population risk can be defined as the expected loss under the true parameter θ* and the distribution of data (x, y):

   Population Risk = E[l((x, y), θ*)], ----------------------- [3967u]

   Here, θ* represents the true parameter values.

2. Empirical Risk (Empirical Loss): The empirical risk is the average loss over your training dataset, which consists of data points generated from the same probabilistic model:

   Empirical Risk = (1/N) * Σ l((x(i), y(i)), θ), ----------------------- [3967v]

   where N is the number of training data points.

3. Regularization Term (L2 Regularization): In the context of the probabilistic model, you can think of the L2 regularization term as a prior distribution over the parameters θ. Specifically, you can assume that the parameters follow a Gaussian (normal) distribution with mean zero and variance determined by the regularization parameter λ:

   Regularization Term = -λ * ||θ||^2, ----------------------- [3967w]

   This regularization term penalizes large deviations of the parameters θ from zero.

Now, we can express the excess risk with these components:

          Excess Risk = Population Risk - Empirical Risk + Regularization Term ----------------------- [3967x]

          Excess Risk = E[l((x, y), θ*)] - (1/N) * Σ l((x(i), y(i)), θ) - λ * ||θ||^2 ----------------------- [3967y]

This equation quantifies how well your model generalizes from the training data to unseen data, taking into account the probabilistic model, empirical loss, and L2 regularization. The regularization term helps prevent overfitting by encouraging the parameters θ to stay close to zero, thus promoting a simpler model. The balance between fitting the training data and regularization is controlled by the regularization parameter λ.

============================================

Table . Application examples of loss function.