# Prereqs

• The data generating distribution (DGD)

# Intro

In the previous lecture, we learned about the DGD, the beautiful lie we tell ourselves to make progress model we use to think about many of the problems in ML. Most importantly, we learned that if only we had access to the DGD, then ML would be a trivial problem, because it’s fairly straightforward to go from the DGD to classifiers and regressors that provably work as well as we can expect to.

The truth, of course, is that we do not have access to the DGD; instead, we only have a finite sample, which we often obtain through a process which could very rarely be described as “independent and identically distributed”. As we also learned last time, going from a finite sample to something that looks a little more like the DGD will always involve a bias of some kind (the inductive bias).

Today, we are going to study one of the most natural ways to build classifiers and regressors. We will introduce a notion of similarity between feature vectors, and make a prediction about an unseen feature vector by comparing it to samples in the training set that are “near” it.

## The nearest-neighbor method for classification

For now, let’s assume that our features are all numeric, so that there is a natural way to create a vector from each data point. Then, given any two vectors $a$ and $b$, we can setup a notion of distance. Let’s start with the most common one, euclidean distance:

$d(a,b) = \sqrt{\sum_i (a_i - b_i)^2}$

Clearly, $d(a, b)$ is zero if and only if $a = b$. So the closer $d(a, b)$ is to zero, the more similar two points are.

Now notice the connection to the Bayes optimal classifier under the DGD. If only we could find infinitely many points in the training set that are identical to the one we have (and had infinitely much time to count them), then the optimal classifier would simply be the majority vote, the class with the largest conditional probability at that specific input point. But:

1. we don’t have infinitely many training points
2. we almost always have no identical points to the point we need to predict

So, instead, we do the straightforward thing: we pick a notion of distance, we pick a certain number of close-by points, and we classify the new point by the majority vote. This is the nearest-neighbor method.

In Python code, this is:

def knn_predict(v, k):
dists = list((d(v, p), label)
for (p, label) in training_set)
top_labels = list(label for (_, label) in dists.sort()[0:k])
return majority(top_labels)


There are important things to note with this naive method.

1. There is no training process: we just stash all of the data in the training set.
2. There is no procedure in place to pick a value for k: this is another example of a hyperparameter.
3. (Similarly, there is no procedure to pick a definition of d!)
4. At prediction time, the naive method looks at every training point

Here is a demo of Nearest-neighbor classification where you can play with k to see its effect.

The most important property (and its biggest shortcoming) of nearest-neighbor classification seems obvious to state, but is surprisingly unintuitive, and leads us into the topic of the next lecture. Imagine, hypothetically, a data generating distribution in which every input point stays at the same distance from every other point. This seems weird and unlikely. But if you accept that weirdness for now, then you can see that in this case, “nearby points” are impossible. If were point were equally close to one another, then our heuristic for collecting a large subset of points becomes useless.

What is more profoundly weird, though, is that when our data lives in high dimensional spaces, the geometry of the situation is pretty much this weird world. That will be the topic of our next lecture.

## Things to keep in mind for the future

Nearest-neighbor classification is the first method we have come across which, surprisingly, does not necessarily need access to the data features directly. The entirety of the method can be replaced by the distance oracle. Although later in the course we will have deeper reasons to take this point of view seriously, this is a good time to note that there are practical reasons to like this.

First, it is often easier to come up with a defensible notion of similarity (or distance) than it is to come up with methods that combine data features directly. In this case, nearest-neighbor methods are by far the most natural way to write ML code.

## Exercises

1. As k varies, which are the more complex models, and which are the less complex models? Justify your answer using the principles we discussed in class.
2. What is the equivalent method in the regression setting (as opposed to classification)?
3. There are deep connections between vector representations and distances. For the euclidean distance we used here, show the following property:

$d(a,b)^2 = \langle a, a \rangle + \langle b, b \rangle - 2 \langle a, b \rangle$