PAC Learning with Improvements
Idan Attias, Avrim Blum, Keziah Naggita, Donya Saless, Dravyansh Sharma, Matthew R. Walter
Abstract
One of the most basic lower bounds in machine learning is that in nearly any nontrivial setting, it takes at least 1/ϵ samples to learn to error ϵ (and more, if the classifier being learned is complex). However, suppose that data points are agents who have the ability to improve by a small amount if doing so will allow them to receive a (desired) positive classification. In that case, we may actually be able to achieve zero error by just being "close enough". For example, imagine a hiring test used to measure an agent's skill at some job such that for some threshold θ, agents who score above θ will be successful and those who score below θ will not (i.e., learning a threshold on the line). Suppose also that by putting in effort, agents can improve their skill level by some small amount r. In that case, if we learn an approximation θ of θ such that θ ≤ θ ≤ θ + r and use it for hiring, we can actually achieve error zero, in the sense that (a) any agent classified as positive is truly qualified, and (b) any agent who truly is qualified can be classified as positive by putting in effort. Thus, the ability for agents to improve has the potential to allow for a goal one could not hope to achieve in standard models, namely zero error. In this paper, we explore this phenomenon more broadly, giving general results and examining under what conditions the ability of agents to improve can allow for a reduction in the sample complexity of learning, or alternatively, can make learning harder. We also examine both theoretically and empirically what kinds of improvementaware algorithms can take into account agents who have the ability to improve to a limited extent when it is in their interest to do so.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext d82f7519-e59c-47ec-9a7e-3612fac0bcaeBuilds on9
- Performative PredictionJuan C. Perdomo, Tijana Zrnic, Celestine Mendler-Dünner, Moritz HardtICML 2020 · 422 citations
- Strategic Classification is Causal Modeling in DisguiseJohn Miller, Smitha Milli, Moritz HardtICML 2020 · 127 citations
- Learning Strategy-Aware Linear ClassifiersYiling Chen, Yang Liu, Chara PodimataNeurIPS 2020 · 110 citations
- Causal Strategic Linear RegressionYonadav Shavit, Benjamin L. Edelman, Brian AxelrodICML 2020 · 91 citations
- Who Leads and Who Follows in Strategic Classification?Tijana Zrnic, Eric Mazumdar, S. Shankar Sastry, Michael I. JordanNeurIPS 2021 · 76 citations
Related papers
- Conservative classifiers do consistently well with improving agents: characterizing statistical and online learningDravyansh Sharma, Alec SunNeurIPS 2025 · 3 citations
- Optimal Weak to Strong LearningKasper Green Larsen, Martin RitzertNeurIPS 2022 · 16 citations
- Gradient-Based Algorithms for Machine TeachingPei Wang, Kabir Nagrecha, Nuno VasconcelosCVPR 2021
- Equal Improvability: A New Fairness Notion Considering the Long-term ImpactOzgur Guldogan, Yuchen Zeng, Jy-yong Sohn, Ramtin Pedarsani et al.ICLR 2023 · 1 citation
- Optimally Improving Cooperative Learning in a Social SettingShahrzad Haddadan, Cheng Xin, Jie GaoICML 2024 · 2 citations
