Binary Losses for Density Ratio Estimation
density ratio estimation;domain adaptation;composite binary losses;class probability estimation
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. Could you briefly outline the most significant theoretical contribution of your paper and the challenges involved in achieving it?

2. Could you explain the intuition behind the flatness of your method in Figure 2? If the method aims to estimate the ratio accurately for high values, shouldn’t it follow the top of the curve closely? Furthermore, in the lower row of the figure for $\alpha=0.01$, I am not sure I understand why one would prefer your estimate over KuLSIF.

3. Since you mention that standard methods prioritize estimating smaller values and you focus on higher values, what happens if one applies standard methods to the inverse ratio, i.e., estimating $dQ/dP$?

Typo: In footnote 2, the next-to-last equation contains probabilities that should be conditioned on $x$: it should be $\rho(y=1∣x)\rho(x)$ instead of $\rho(x,y=1)$.
1. The paper appears to be self-contained and introduces all the tools and notation it uses.

2. The experimental results are fairly extensive for a theoretical paper.

3. The theoretical results, especially Lemma 4 in the appendix, seem to rely on non-trivial applications of several previously established results.
The authors characterize the set of loss functions that, when used in density ratio estimation for binary classification, lead to the minimization of a particular Bregman divergence. This approach is motivated by the observation that some commonly used losses (such as exponential or logistic) yield density ratio estimates that minimize a similar Bregman divergence expression. After identifying these losses, they design a new family of losses aimed at accurately estimating large values of the density ratio, in contrast to standard losses that focus on estimating small ratio values. They apply these designed losses to estimate density ratios in Gaussian RKHS and for unsupervised domain adaptation.
1. The presentation of the paper could be significantly improved. The paper uses heavy notation — for example, understanding $B_{-\underline{L}^\circ}(\beta,g\circ f)$ requires substantial effort. Another clear example is Remark 1, which is completely incomprehensible unless the reader is already familiar with everything it covers.

2. The novelty of this work is unclear. I believe the authors would agree that the main contribution of this paper is theoretical and primarily represented by Theorem 1. However, given Remark 1, it is not evident how substantial this theorem’s contribution really is.

3. It is not clear why one should focus on minimizing equation (1). According to the beginning of Section 2, there are "many" density ratio estimation methods that lead to minimizing (1), with four examples provided. What does "many" mean in this context, and why should one limit themself to this specific type of minimizers?

4. Some parts of the experimental results, like Section 6.2, contain too much irrelevant information for readers, making it easy to miss the main points. I would consider moving some of this information to the appendices.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
- Considering major weaknesses 1 and 2 discussed above, could you provide more additional discussions to clarify the novel contributions of your study?
- Considering major weaknesses 3 and 4 discussed above, could you provide further detailed information to elucidate the effectiveness of your approach discussed in Section 5?
References to existing research are sufficiently provided.
The authors present theoretical results characterizing strictly proper binary loss functions that lead to minimizers of Bregman divergences in probability density estimation. According to these theoretical results, they propose a novel loss function that prioritizes accurate estimation of large density ratio values over smaller ones. They also empirically validate the effectiveness of their proposed loss function through numerical experiments, demonstrating that the novel loss function can lead to improvements in parameter selection for domain adaptation tasks.
#### Major Weaknesses:
1. There are concerns regarding the novelty of the theoretical results presented in this study. Specifically, results such as the necessity of Equation (8) in Theorem 1 appear to be easily derived from findings  in prior work referenced by this study ([1], [2], and [3]). A detailed examination of this issue is provided below.
2. Additionally, the canonical form of the density ratio link, given in Equation (10), does not constitute a new result, as it can be derived from results presented in prior studies ([1]). A detailed examination of this issue is provided below.
3. The proposed loss function, derived from Equation (11) in Section 5, lacks a clear connection to the theoretical results previously established in Section 4.
4. Moreover, it is unclear how the proposed loss function specifically addresses shortcomings associated with existing loss functions. The authors are encouraged to include mathematical analysis, such as theorems, to clarify the properties of the proposed loss function.

#### Minor Weakness:
5. Figures 2 and 3:
    - The axis titles are missing, making it difficult to interpret the graphs.
    - In particular, Figure 3 lacks explanatory labels for each axis, which are needed to understand these experimental results.


---
Hereafter, details of the major weaknesses, specifically Weaknesses 1 and 2, are discussed.

#### About major weakness 1:
Equation (8) can be derived as follows:
1. From Theorem 4 in [2], we know that $B_{\phi} = B_{\phi'}$ for any $\phi'$ with $\phi'(y) = \phi(y) + c_2 y + c_1$, where $c_2$ and $c_1$ are constants. This fact implies that terms such as $\hat{\eta} c_2 $ and $c_1$ in the definition of $\gamma(\cdot)$ (line 236) are redundant.
2. From Theorem 4 in [1], we know that $L(\eta, \mu) = \underline{L}(z) + (\eta - \mu) \underline{L}'(\mu)$.
3. Additionally, we have $\underline{L}(\eta) = - \phi(\eta)$ because $\underline{L} = L(\eta, \eta) = \eta l_1(\eta) + (1 - \eta) l_2(\eta) = \gamma(\eta) = - \phi(\eta)$.
4. Thus, $L(\eta, \Psi^{-1}(y)) = - \phi(\Psi^{-1}(y)) - (\eta - \Psi^{-1}(y)) \phi' (\Psi^{-1}(y))$, where Equation (8) represents the cases for $\eta = 0$ and $\eta = 1$ in this equation.

#### About major weakness 2:
From Corollary 3 in [1] and the discussion in Section 6.1 of [1], it follows that $(g^{-1}_{can})' (c) = w(c) = - \underline{L}''(c) = \phi''(c)$. There appears to be no significant difference between Equation (10) and this equation.

---

[1] Reid, M. D., & Williamson, R. C. (2010). Composite binary losses. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 2387-2422.

[2] Reid, M. D., & Williamson, R. C. (2011). Information, Divergence and Risk for Binary Experiments. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(3).

[3] Menon, A., & Ong, C. S. (2016, June). Linking losses for density ratio and class-probability estimation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 304-313). PMLR.
Yes
No details of concerns beyond the above.
No ethics review needed.
1. Is the existence of the density ratio always guaranteed? For example, if the two densities have no overlapping support, in which case, the definition seems to fail.  Can the proposed method perform a good estimation?
2. If one distribution has a light tail and the other a heavy tail, how would that impact the estimation?
3. It seems the author considered only a one-dimensional case in the experiment, how about a multi-dimensional case when $d>0$? This is more common in covariate shift problems.
4. What are the biggest difficulties and challenges for deriving the the sample complexity of the proposed methods?
1. Compared to the related literature, this paper introduces a new framework for constructing novel loss functions, prioritizing an accurate estimation of large density ratio values over smaller ones.
2. It provides a thorough mathematical foundation, characterizing the types of loss functions that align with specific error measures derived from Bregman divergences. The comparison with the related literature is good.
3.  The work shows large practical implementation through empirical data and real application in deep domain adaptation. The simulation work is extensive to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
The paper addresses the challenge of estimating the ratio of two probability densities from observations. Typically, this is done using binary classifiers, but the efficacy of the estimators is significantly affected by the choice of the binary loss function used. The authors characterize loss functions that result in statistically favorable density ratio estimations, particularly focusing on achieving low errors in large density ratio values—a departure from classical approaches that perform well on small values. They introduce novel loss functions and demonstrate their application in parameter selection for deep domain adaptation tasks. Numerical experiments and real-world applications illustrate the practical benefits of these loss functions.
1. The paper does not delve into the sample complexity of the proposed methods, which could be critical for understanding their efficiency in various scenarios.
2. While it improves estimation for large density values, the impact on performance for smaller values isn't thoroughly explored.
3. A more detailed introduction of the experiments should be considered.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
1. Theorem 1 extends previous results. What is the main challenge in extending these, and what is the key novelty in the proof?
2. Table 1 shows that EW consistently performs best for Amazon Reviews under Importance Weighted Aggregation. Is there any intuition behind this outcome?
The theoretical analysis appears solid, and several real datasets are used to demonstrate the proposed loss function. The authors provided detailed comparison between new results and previous analysis.
This work examines the estimation of the Radon-Nikodym derivative, which is the ratio of two probability densities. In classical algorithms, an incorrect choice of binary loss function can lead to biased estimates. The author first derived the necessary properties for an appropriate loss function. Based on this analysis, novel loss functions were proposed, demonstrating improved parameter selection in both simulated and real data examples.
Although the author discussed how their results improve upon previous work, they did not elaborate on how their proof differs from prior analyses. Consequently, the challenges of the proof, as well as the novelty and contributions of the theoretical analysis, remain unclear. Additionally, the writing could be improved; including more high-level explanations of the motivation and results would make it easier to follow.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
In the conclusion, you mention that the sample complexity of these tasks is not known. Do you mean to say that the empirical risk minimizer of the loss converges to the minimizer of the Bregman divergence only as the number of samples goes to infinity, but we do not know finite-sample error bounds for the empirical minimizer (similar to how in PAC learning theory, this would correspond to an additional "complexity of F"/#samples error term)?
The characterization provided by the authors significantly completes the picture laid out in prior work by Menon and Ong 2016, and work by Reid and Williamson (see Remark 1 for specifics). The motivation for considering the inverted problem is convincing---one can imagine ascribing certain desired properties of an estimator to the minimizer of a Bregman divergence, and thereafter, using the characterization derived in the paper, obtain the correct loss function to minimize on the data that realizes the minimization of this Bregman divergence (and hence has the desried property). The authors specifically consider the property "small errors on large density ratios", and obtain strong empirical results for minimizing the loss functions through their characterization. In my view, this is a valuable contribution that enhances our toolbox for estimating density ratios in a principled manner. The writing of the paper is also geneally good, although at some places, it becomes dense with a lot of assumed context.
A standard technique to estimate the ratio between densities of two probability distributions $P$ and $Q$ from samples from each of the distributions is to train a binary classifier that distinguishes the samples. Namely, one labels samples from $P$ with the label $1$, and samples from $Q$ with the label $-1$, and empirically minimizes a loss function on these samples. Depending on the loss function that is chosen, it is known that the as the number of samples tends to infinity, the empirical minimizer effectively minimizes a certain Bregman divergence between the true density ratio and the estimated density ratio.

However, the convex potential of this Bregman divergence depends on the chosen loss function. Namely, the Bregman divergence to the true density ratio that our estimator ends up minimizing depends heavily on the loss function that we chose. As it turns out, most commonly used loss functions (like the logistic loss), correspond to Bregman divergences that do not appropriately penalize discrepancies at large density ratio values, instead penalizing density ratio errors at smaller values---this might lead to suboptimal density ratio estimates in many applications.

This paper takes an inverted approach: given a convex potential $\phi$ (and a ``probability link function'' $g$), the paper characterizes a unique loss function $l_{\phi, g}$, such that upon empirically minimizing $l_{\phi, g}$, as the number of samples grows, the Bregman divergence with potential $\phi$ is minimized. The paper furthermore proposes a canonical link function $g$, which induces a convex loss function $l$, and is hence computationally amenable to empirical risk minimization.

One convenient application of the characterization in this work is that it gives a way for a practitioner to design a loss function that would have the properties they desire. For example, as elaborated in Section 5 by the authors, if one cares about penalizing errors in larger density ratios more than errors in smaller density ratios, one can specify a potential $\phi$ for a Bregman divergence $D_\phi$ that ensures this, and thereafter using the characterization in the paper, obtain the associated loss function $l_\phi$. If one now minimizes $l_\phi$ on the samples, then in the limit, one would be minimizing $D_\phi$ (which was chosen so as to prioritize accurate estimation of large density ratios). In particular, the authors specifically propose two convex potentials $\phi$ for this purpose--the Exponential Weight (EW) function and polynomial weight functions, and derive the associated loss functions from their characterization.

Finally, the authors empirically validate minimizing these loss functions as compared to the standard loss functions on a variety of synthetic as well as real-world datasets. They show that minimizing their loss functions leads to better performance on importance weighting tasks on a range of datasets. The experimental evaluation appears quite thorough and extensive.
Up until you mention your first contribution, the reader has only looked at the pseudocode of Algorithm 1, which uses a probability link function $\Psi$. There has been no mention of $g$ as yet. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that $g(x)$ in Algorithm 1 is simply $\Psi^{-1}(x)/1-\Psi^{-1}(x)$---it would be helpful to at least mention this before introducing "Density ratio link $g$" in line 78. Because otherwise, the reader, who has just seen $\Psi$ in Algorithm 1, is a little confused about where $g$ sprang out of nowhere, and how it is relevant.

---

Minor/typos: \
Line 78: I believe the loss function for an arbitrary $g$ is not convex, but only strictly roper composite (the loss function for the canonical $g$, as stated in the next sentence, is convex).

Line 273: I believe in the denominator, there is a typo (should be $g_{can}$ instead of $g$)
We propose novel loss functions for classifier-based density ratio estimation, that are characterized by minimizing a prescribed Bregman divergence between the density ratio and the constructed estimator.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024binary,
title={Binary Losses for Density Ratio Estimation},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=562B7aLi5X},
note={under review}
}
Estimating the ratio of two probability densities from finitely many observations of the densities, is a central problem in machine learning and statistics. A large class of methods constructs estimators from binary classifiers which distinguish observations from the two densities. However, the error of these constructions depends on the choice of the binary loss function, raising the question of which loss function to choose based on desired error properties.

In this work, we start from prescribed error measures in a class of Bregman divergences and characterize all loss functions that lead to density ratio estimators with a small error. Our characterization provides a simple recipe for constructing loss functions with certain properties, such as loss functions that prioritize an accurate estimation of large values. This contrasts with classical loss functions, such as the logistic loss or boosting loss, which prioritize accurate estimation of small values. We provide numerical illustrations with kernel methods and test their performance in applications of parameter selection for deep domain adaptation.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
density ratio estimation domain adaptation composite binary losses class probability estimation
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/14bcf6426bd1b895b8744fd0eac55b7db9b5013c.pdf
learning theory
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/2259455d785f99cca7cbbf7ec9001b791dab4a4b.zip
Binary Losses for Density Ratio Estimation
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission