This is absolute loss, and hence we’re looking for the minimizer of mean absolute error, which is the median, 15.

This is squared loss, and hence we’re looking for the minimizer of mean squared error, which is the mean, 16.

This is squared loss, multiplied by a constant. Note that when we go to minimize empirical risk for this loss function, we will take the derivative of empirical risk and set it equal to 0; at that point the constant factor of 4 can be divided from both sides, so this problem boils down to minimizing ordinary mean squared error. The only difference is that the graph of mean squared error will be stretched vertically by a factor of 4; the minimizing value will be in the same place.

For more justification, here we consider any general re-scaling \alpha (y-h)^2:

\begin{aligned} R_{sq}(h) &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n \alpha (y_i - h)^2 \\ &= \alpha \cdot \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n (y_i - h)^2 \\ \frac{d}{dh} R_{sq}(h) &= \alpha \cdot \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n 2(y_i - h)(-1) = 0\\ &\implies -\frac{2\alpha}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n (y_i - h) = 0 \\ &\implies \sum_{i = 1}^n (y_i - h) = 0 \\ &\implies h^* = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n y_i \end{aligned}

This is a scaled version of 0-1 loss. We know that empirical risk for 0-1 loss is minimized at the mode, so that also applies here. The mode, i.e. the most common value, is 12.

Note that we can write (3y - 4h)^2 as \left( 3 \left( y - \frac{4}{3}h \right) \right)^2 = 9 \left( y - \frac{4}{3}h \right)^2. As we’ve seen, the constant factor out front has no impact on the minimizing value. Using the same principle as in the last part, we can say that \frac{4}{3} h^* = \bar{x} \implies h^* = \frac{3}{4} \bar{x} = \frac{3}{4} \cdot 16 = 12

No minimizer.

Note that unlike |y - h|, (y - h)^2, and all of the other loss functions we’ve seen, (y - h)^3 tends towards -\infty, rather than having a minimum output of 0. This means that there is no h that minimizes \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n (y_i - h)^3; the larger we make h, the more negative (and hence “smaller") this empirical risk becomes.

The minimizer of MAE for Dataset B is still 5.

Note that when we repeat each data point, we go from having an odd number of data points (23) to an even number (46). This means the minimizer is the set of all values between the middle two values. But the middle two values will now both be y_{12}, and so there are no numbers “in between" them – only y_{12} minimizes MAE.

The mean absolute deviation from the median for Dataset B is still 17.

As we saw in previous part, the median itself does not change. When adding together the deviations from the median, each point is repeated twice, so the sum of all deviations from the median is doubled. However, there are twice as many data points in Dataset B than there are in Dataset A, so we divide by 2n (46) instead of n (23) in our average.

In short, for Dataset B both the numerator and denominator in the calculation of mean absolute deviation from the median \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^n |y_i - \text{Median}(y)|}{n} are double what they were for Dataset A, so the end result is the same as for Dataset A.

Yes, R_{A}(h) = R_{B}(h).

Recall that the definition of R_{abs}(h) is:

R_{abs}(h) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n |y_i - h|

For the first dataset, we have:

R_{A}(h) = \frac{1}{23} \sum_{i = 1}^{23} |y_i - h|

and for the second dataset, we have:

\begin{aligned} R_{B}(h) &= \frac{1}{46} \sum_{i = 1}^{46} \left( |y_1 - h| + |y_1 - h| + |y_2 - h| + |y_2 - h| + ... + |y_{23} - h| + |y_{23} - h| \right) \\ &= \frac{1}{46} \left( 2 \sum_{i = 1}^{23} |y_i - h| \right) \\ &= \frac{1}{23} \sum_{i = 1}^{23} |y_i - h| \\ &= R_{A}(h) \end{aligned}

54.

To maximize the mean of the remaining 10 numbers, we want to minimize the numbers that are removed. The smallest possible non-negative number is 0, so to maximize the mean of the remaining 10, we should remove two 0s from the set of numbers. Recall that the sum of the 12 number set is 12 \cdot 45; then, the maximum possible mean of the remaining 10 is

\frac{12 \cdot 45 - 2 \cdot 0}{10} = \frac{6}{5} \cdot 45 = 54

R_{abs}(22) = 11

We can write the points given to us as:

y_1, y_2, y_3, 10, 14, 22, y_7, y_8

Since there are an even number of data points, all values of h between the middle two points minimize R_{abs}(h). In this case, all values of h in the interval [10, 14] minimize R_{abs}(h) and, as a result, have the same value of R_{abs}(h). Thus, R_{abs}(14) = R_{abs}(11) = 9.

From lecture, we know that:

\text{slope of $R$ at $h$} = \frac{1}{n} \left( \left(\text{\# points } < h\right) - \left(\text{\# points } > h\right)\right)

We can use this formula to determine what to add to R_{abs}(14) to get R_{abs}(22). For any h in the interval (14, 22), the slope of R at h (given by plugging any h \in (14, 22) into the slope equation)is \frac{1}{8} (5 - 3) = \frac{1}{4}. This means that for every 1 unit we move to the right from h = 14 until we get to h = 22, R_{abs}(h) increases by \frac{1}{4}. So,

R_{abs}(22) = R_{abs}(14) + (22 - 14) \cdot \frac{1}{4} = 9 + 2 = 11

You can visualize the solution to this problem with this interactive graph.

\begin{align*} \frac{d}{dh} L_B(h, y) &= \frac{d}{dh} \left[ \log \left( \frac{y}{h} \right) \right]^2 \\ &= 2 \cdot \log \left( \frac{y}{h} \right) \cdot \frac{d}{dh} \log \left( \frac{y}{h} \right) \\ &= 2 \cdot \log \left( \frac{y}{h} \right) \cdot \frac{d}{dh} \left( \log(y) - \log(h) \right) \\ &= 2 \cdot \log \left( \frac{y}{h} \right) \cdot \left( - \frac{1}{h} \right) \\ &= -\frac{2}{h} \log \left( \frac{y}{h} \right) \end{align*}

\begin{align*} R_B(h) &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n \left[ \log \left( \frac{y_i}{h} \right) \right]^2 \\ \frac{d}{dh} R_B(h) &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n \frac{d}{dh} \left[ \log \left( \frac{y_i}{h} \right) \right]^2 \\ &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n -\frac{2}{h} \log \left( \frac{y_i}{h} \right) \\ &= -\frac{2}{nh} \sum_{i = 1}^n \log \left( \frac{y_i}{h} \right) = 0 \\ 0 &= \sum_{i = 1}^n \log \left( \frac{y_i}{h} \right) = \sum_{i = 1}^n \left( \log(y_i) - \log(h)\right) \\ 0 &= \sum_{i = 1}^n \log(y_i) - \log(h) \sum_{i = 1}^n 1 \\ 0 &= \left( \log(y_1) + \log(y_2) + ... + \log(y_n) \right) - n \log(h) \\ \log(h^n) &= \log(y_1 \cdot y_2 \cdot ... \cdot y_n) \\ h^n &= y_1 \cdot y_2 \cdot ... \cdot y_n \\ h^* &= (y_1 \cdot y_2 \cdot ... \cdot y_n)^{\frac{1}{n}} \end{align*}

As we have seen in lectures, the median minimizes the absolute loss risk function. h^*_1=\text{Median}(y_1, \cdots, y_7).

As we have seen in lectures, the mean minimizes the square loss risk function. h^*_2=\text{Mean}(y_1, \cdots, y_7).

False. It changes the mean from 85 to 84. (However, the median is not changed.)

Removing y_7 affects h_2^* more than h_1^*. This is because the mean squared loss is more sensitive to outliers than absolute loss, and removing data changes the mean more.

False. The function |y-h|^3 is not differentiable everywhere so we can not use the gradient descent to find the minimum.

False. The function is not convex, so the gradient descent algorithm is not guaranteed to converge.

r=-0.95. This means the weather temperature inversely affects Baklava sales, i.e., they are highly negatively correlated.

We know w_1^* = \frac{\sigma_y}{\sigma_x}r. We know that \sigma_x=8.5 and w_1^*=-3. We can find \sigma_y as follows:

\begin{aligned} \sigma_y^2 =& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^n (y_i - \bar{y})^2\\ =& \frac{1}{7}[(100-85)^2+(110-85)^2+(75-85)^2+(90-85)^2+(105-85)^2+(90-85)^2+(25-85)^2]\\ =&\frac{1}{7}[15^2+25^2+10^2+5^2+20^2+5^2+60^2]=714.28 \end{aligned}

Then, \sigma_y=26.7 which results in r=-0.95.

False. The correlation coefficient has no unit. (It is always a unitless number in [-1,1] range.)

w_0^*=280

Note that H(\bar x)=\bar y. Therefore, \begin{aligned} H(65)=-3\cdot 65 +w_0^*=85 \xrightarrow[]{}w_0^*=280. \end{aligned}

H^*(x) = -1.5x + 280

The standard deviation scales by a factor of 2, i.e., \sigma_x'=2\cdot \sigma_x.
The same is true for the mean, i.e., \bar{x}'=2 \cdot \bar{x}.
The correlation r, standard deviation of the y-values \sigma_y, and the mean of the y-values \bar y do not change.
(You can verify these claims by plugging 2x in for x in their respective formulas and seeing what happens, but it’s faster to visually reason why this happens.)

Therefore, w_1'^*=\frac{\sigma_y'}{\sigma_x'}r' = \frac{(\sigma_y)}{(2\cdot\sigma_x)}(r) = \frac{w_1^*}{2} = -1.5.

We can find w_0'^* as follows:

\begin{align*} \bar{y}'&=H(\bar{x}')\\&=\frac{w_1^*}{2}(2\bar{x})+w_0'^*\\&=w_1^*\bar{x}+w_0'^* \\ &\downarrow \\ (85) &= -3(65) + w_0'^* \\ w_0'^*&=280 \end{align*}

So, H^*(x) would be -1.5x + 280.

H^*(x) = -3x + 340

All parameters remain unchanged except \bar{x}'=\bar{x}+20. Since r, \sigma_x and \sigma_y are not changed, w_1^* does not change. Then, one can find w_0^* as follows:

\begin{align*} \bar{y}'&=H(\bar{x}') \\ &\downarrow \\ (85) &=-3(65+20)+w_0^* \\ w_0^*&=340 \end{align*}

So, H^*(x) would be -3x + 340.

R_{\text{midterm}}(h)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}[(\alpha y_i - h)^2+\lambda h]=[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\alpha y_i - h)^2] +\lambda h

h^*=\alpha \bar{y} - \frac{\lambda}{2}

---

\begin{align*} \frac{d}{dh}R_{\text{midterm}}(h)&= [\frac{2}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}(h- \alpha y_i )] +\lambda \\ &=2 h-2\alpha \bar{y} + \lambda. \end{align*}

By setting \frac{d}{dh}R_{\text{midterm}}(h)=0 we get 2 h^*-2\alpha \bar{y} + \lambda=0 \Rightarrow h^*=\alpha \bar{y} - \frac{\lambda}{2}.

\bar{y} = 121

There are several ways to complete this problem. One way is to interpret mean absolute error of a constant prediction h as the average distance of each data point to h. So we are told that the average distance of each data point to 27 is 94. That is, the data points are 94 units away from 27 on average. Since all the data is at least 60, they must be 94 units more than 27, or 121, on average.

You can also arrive at the same answer algebraically using the definition of R_{abs}(h). We have \begin{aligned} R_{abs}(h) &= \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^{n}|y_i - h| \\ R_{abs}(27) &= \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^{n}|y_i - 27| \\ &= \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^{n}(y_i - 27) \qquad \text{because each~} y_i\geq 60 \\ &= \frac1n\left( \sum_{i=1}^{n}y_i - \sum_{i=1}^{n}27\right) \\ &= \frac1n\left( n\cdot\bar y - n\cdot27\right) \\ &= \bar y - 27 \end{aligned}

Since we are told that R(27) = 94, we can set \bar y - 27 = 94, to find that \bar y = 121.

R_{abs}(58) = 63

Again, we can complete this problem in multiple ways. Interpreting R_{abs}(h) as the average distance of each data point to h, we can see that since 58 is 31 units closer to each data point than 27, R_{abs}(58) = R_{abs}(27) - 31 = 94 - 31 = 63.

Another way to do this problem uses the answer from part (a). Since the data points average to 121, their distance to 58 is 121-58 = 63, on average.

Our answer is 18.

One easy way to do this problem is to recognize that none of these values are too low, but they may be too high. For example, the mean absolute deviation from the median can be as low as 0, when all the data points are the same. Since we are told there is only one correct answer and we know that no answer choice is too low, that means the correct answer must be the lowest option, 18.

We can also rule out all the other answer choices to show that they are too high. To do that, we’ll show that 62 is too high, and therefore, both 94 and 102 are too high as well. We are told that all data points are at least 60. By similar logic as we used in part (b), we can see that R_{abs}(60) = 61. Since the minimum value of R_{abs}(h) occurs at the median h^*\geq 60 and we already know R_{abs}(60) = 61, it must be the case that R(h^*) \leq 61.

The dataset is {3, 11}.

We’ve already learned that R_{sq}(h) is minimized at the mean of the data, and the minimum value of R_sq(h) is the variance of the data. So we need to provide a dataset of two points with a mean of 7 and a variance of 16. Recall that the variance is the average squared distance of each data point to the mean. Since we want a variance of 16, we can make each point 4 units away from the mean. Therefore, our data set can be y_1 = 3, y_2 = 11. In fact, this is the only solution.

A more calculative approach uses the formulas for mean and variance and solves a system of two equations:

\begin{aligned} \frac{y_1+y_2}{2} &= 7 \\ \frac12 \left((y_1 - 7)^2 + (y_2 - 7)^2 \right) &= 16 \end{aligned}

5

The first step is to calculate the absolute errors (|y_i - h|).

\begin{align*} \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{|4-9|, |9-9|, |10-9|, |14-9|, |15-9|\} \\ \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{|-5|, |0|, |1|, |5|, |6|\} \\ \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{5, 0, 1, 5, 6\} \end{align*}

Now we have to order the values inside of the absolute errors: \{0, 1, 5, 5, 6\}. We can see the median is 5, so M_{abs}(9) =5.

5 or 15

Our goal is to find another number that will give us the same median of absolute errors as in part (a).

One way to do this is to plug in a number and guess. Another way requires noticing you can modify 10 (the middle element) to become 5 in either direction (negative or positive) because of the absolute value.

We can solve this equation to get |10-x| = 5 \rightarrow x = 15 \text{ and } x = 5.

We can then test this by following the same steps as we did in part (a).

For x = 15: \begin{align*} \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{|4-15|, |9-15|, |10-15|, |14-15|, |15-15|\} \\ \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{|-11|, |-6|, |-5|, |-1|, |0|\} \\ \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{11, 6, 5, 1, 0\} \end{align*}

Then we order the elements to get the absolute errors: \{0, 1, 5, 6, 11\}. We can see the median is 5, so M_{abs}(15) =5.

For x = 5: \begin{align*} \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{|4-5|, |9-5|, |10-5|, |14-5|, |15-5|\} \\ \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{|-1|, |4|, |5|, |9|, |10|\} \\ \text{Absolute Errors} &= \{1, 4, 5, 9, 10\} \end{align*}

We do not have to re-order the elements because they are in order already. We can see the median is 5, so M_{abs}(5) =5.

The numbers 5 and 15 are clearly bad predictions (close to the extreme values in the dataset), yet they are considered just as good a prediction by this metric as the number 9, which is roughly in the center of the dataset. Intuitively, 9 is a much better prediction, but this way of measuring the quality of a prediction does not recognize that.

Graph 2

The important thing to note here is the y axis is equal to R_{abs}(h) and the x axis is equal to our h. The easiest way to figure out which graph belongs to which dataset is to choose some numbers for h and see if a line matches up with the chosen points.

h^*	R_{abs}(h)
0	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-0| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 41 \approx 8
8	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-8| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 11 = 2
18	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-18| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 49 \approx 10

When looking at these three places we can see that this dataset matches Graph 2.

Graph 1

We will use the same approach we used in part (a).

h^*	R_{abs}(h)
0	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-0| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 44 \approx 9
8	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-8| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 34 \approx 7
18	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-18| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 56 \approx 11

When looking at these three places we can see that this dataset matches Graph 1.

Graph 3

We will use the same approach we used in the previous parts.

h^*	R_{abs}(h)
0	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-0| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 44 \approx 11
8	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-8| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 17 \approx 3
18	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-18| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 33 \approx 7

When looking at these three places we can see that this dataset matches Graph 3.

Graph 4

We will use the same approach we used in the previous parts.

h^*	R_{abs}(h)
0	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-0| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 62 \approx 12
8	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-8| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 22 \approx 4
18	\frac{1}{5}\sum_{i = 1}^{5}|y_i-18| = \frac{1}{5} \cdot 28 \approx 6

When looking at these three places we can see that this dataset matches Graph 4. Another way would be choosing the only option not chosen in the other parts yet!

This linear transformation reverses the order of the data because if a<b, then -3a>-3b and so adding four to both sides gives f(a)>f(b). Since x_1\leq x_2 \leq \dots \leq x_n, this means that the smallest of f(x_1), f(x_2), \dots, f(x_n) is f(x_n) and the largest is f(x_1). Therefore,

\begin{aligned} EM(f(x_1), f(x_2), \dots, f(x_n)) &= \dfrac{f(x_n) + f(x_1)}{2} \\ &= \dfrac{-3x_n+4-3x_1+4}{2} \\ &= \dfrac{-3x_n-3x_1}{2} + 4\\ &= -3\left(\dfrac{x_1+x_n}{2}\right) + 4 \\ &= -3EM(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n)+ 4\\ &= f(EM(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n)). \end{aligned}

R(2) = \frac13 (2e+e^4)

We need to calculate the loss for each data point then average the losses. That is, we need to calculate R(2) = \dfrac{1}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} e^{(2-y_i)^2}. The table below records the necessary information:

y_i	1	3	4
2-y_i	1	-1	-2
(2-y_i)^2	1	1	4
e^{(2-y_i)^2}	e	e	e^4

This means: \begin{aligned} R(2) &= \dfrac{1}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} e^{(2-y_i)^2} \\ &= \frac13 (e+e+e^4) \\ &= \frac13 (2e+e^4) \end{aligned}

h_1 = 2 + \frac{2e^4}{3}

First, we calculate the derivative of R(h). Using the chain rule, we have \begin{align*} R(h) &= \dfrac1n \sum_{i=1}^n e^{(h-y_i)^2} \\ R'(h) &= \dfrac1n \sum_{i=1}^n e^{(h-y_i)^2}\cdot 2(h-y_i) \\ \end{align*} To apply the gradient descent update rule, we next have to calculate R'(h_0) or R'(2). Plugging in h=2 to the derivative we calculated above gives: \begin{align*} R'(2) &= \dfrac1n \sum_{i=1}^n e^{(2-y_i)^2}\cdot 2(2-y_i) \end{align*}

The table below records the necessary information (note that we’ve done most of the work already).

Therefore: \begin{aligned} R'(2) &= \dfrac{1}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} e^{(2-y_i)^2\cdot 2(2-y_i)} \\ &= \frac13 (2e - 2e -4e^4) \\ &= \frac{-4e^4}{3}. \end{aligned} Applying the gradient descent update rule gives: \begin{aligned} h_1 &= h_0 - \alpha\cdot R'(h_0) \\ &= 2 - \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{-4e^4}{3} \\ &= 2 + \frac{2e^4}{3} \end{aligned}

h^*=-2-3=-5

This is equivalent to the absolute loss on the same dataset shifted by \alpha. Therefore the optimal solution that minimizes this loss is the median (-2) shifted by -\alpha (-3).

h^*=2 \cdot 2=4.

This is equivalent to the absolute loss on the same dataset scaled by \beta. Therefore the optimal solution that minimizes this loss is the mode scaled by \beta.

6

We know there is an even number of integers in this dataset because 10000 \% 2 = 0. We can find the middle of the dataset as follows: \frac{10000}{2} = 5000. This means the element in the 5000th position and 5001st position can give us our median. The element at the 5000th position is a 5 because 2500 + 2500 = 5000. The element at the 5001st position is a 7 because the next number after 5 is 7. We can then plug 5 and 7 into the equation: \frac{x_{5000} + x_{5001}}{2} = \frac{5 + 7}{2} = 6

The mean is smaller than the median.

We can calculate the mean as follows: \frac{2500 \cdot 3 + 2500 \cdot 5 + 4500 \cdot 7 + 500 \cdot 9}{10000} = 5.6 Using part (a) we know that 5.6 < 6, which means the mean is smaller than the median.

\text{Mean($D$)} = \frac{a}{5} + 3

\begin{cases} \text{Median($D$)} = 2 & \text{if a is in the range of } 0<a\leq2 \\ \text{Median($D$)} = a & \text{if a is in the range of } 2<a\leq5 \\ \text{Median($D$)} = 5 & \text{if a is in the range of } 5<a\leq\infty \\ \end{cases}

\dfrac{15}{4}<a<10

Since there are 3 possible median values, we will have to discuss each situation separately.

In case 1, when 0<a\leq2, \text{Median}(D) = 2. So, we have:

\begin{align*} \text{Mean}(D) &< \text{Median}(D)\\ 3 + \frac{a}{5} &< 2\\ a&<-5 \end{align*}

But a<-5 is in conflict with the condition 0<a\leq2, therefore there is no solution in this situation, and Median(D) = 2 is impossible.

In case 2, when 2<a<5, \text{Median}(D) = a. So, we have:

\begin{align*} \text{Mean}(D) &< \text{Median}(D)\\ 3 + \frac{a}{5} &< a\\ 3 &< \frac{4}{5} a\\ a &> \frac{15}{4}\\ \end{align*}

So a has to be larger than \frac{15}{4}. But remember from the prerequisite condition that 2<a<5.

To satisfy both conditions, we must have \frac{15}{4}<a<5.

In case 3, when a\geq5, \text{Median}(D) = 5. So, we have: \begin{align*} \text{Mean}(D) &< \text{Median}(D)\\ 3 + \frac{a}{5} &< 5\\ a&<10 \end{align*}

combining with the prerequisite condition, we have 5\leq a<10

Combining the range of all three cases, we have \dfrac{15}{4}<a<10 as our final answer.

y_1 = 7, r_1 = 4

The mean squared error is written as: \begin{align*} R_{sq}(h) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n}(y_{i}-h)^2 \end{align*}

Since we only have two data points (n=2), the equation simplifies to:

\begin{align*} R_{sq}(h) = \frac{1}{2}((y_{0}-h)^2+ (y_{1}-h)^2) \end{align*}

Taking the derivative with respect to h, we have: \begin{align*} \frac{dR_{sq}(h)}{dh} = -(y_{0}-h)- (y_{1}-h) \end{align*}

We know that the derivative has to be 0 at the local minima, therefore at h=5, we have:

\begin{align*} \frac{dR_{sq}(h)}{dh} = -(3-5)- (y_{1}-5) &= 0\\ % -2+y_1-5 &=0\\ y_1 &= 7 \end{align*}

So we know that the dataset is \{3,7\}. Given all these information, we can calculate r_1 with:

\begin{align*} R_{sq}(5) &= \frac{1}{2}((y_{0}-5)^2+ (y_{1}-5)^2)\\ &=\frac{1}{2}((3-5)^2+ (7-5)^2)\\ &=\frac{1}{2}(4+4)=4 \end{align*}

30.

The minimizer of empirical risk for the constant model when using zero-one loss is the mode.

7.

The minimizer of empirical risk for the constant model when using absolute loss is the median. If the bar at 30 wasn’t there, the median would be 6, but the existence of that bar drags the “halfway” point up slightly, to 7.

11.

The minimizer of empirical risk for the constant model when using squared loss is the mean. The mean is heavily influenced by the presence of outliers, of which there are many at 30, dragging the mean up to 11. While you can’t calculate the mean here, given the large right tail, this question can be answered by understanding that the mean must be larger than the median, which is 7, and 11 is the next biggest option.

15.

The minimizer of empirical risk for the constant model when using infinity loss is the midrange, i.e. halfway between the min and max.

The values of the three blanks are: y_2, z_3, and any value between z_1 and z_2 (inclusive).

For the first blank, we know the median of the y-dataset minimizes mean absolute error of a constant prediction on the y-dataset. Since y_1 < y_2 < y_3, y_2 is the unique minimizer.

For the second blank, we can also use the fact that the median of the z-dataset minimizes mean absolute error of a constant prediction on the z-dataset. Since z_1 < z_2 < z_3 < z_4 < z_5, z_3 is the unique minimizer.

For the third blank, we know that when there are an odd number of data points in a dataset, any values between the middle two (inclusive) minimize mean absolute error. Here, the middle two in the full dataset of 8 are z_1 and z_2.

\alpha = \frac{3}{8}, \beta = \frac{5}{8}.

To find \alpha and \beta, we need to construct a similar-looking equation to the one above. We can start by looking at our equation for T_\text{abs}(h):

T_\text{abs}(h) = \frac{1}{8} \sum_{i = 1}^8 |t_i - h|

Now, we can split the sum on the right hand side into two sums, one for our y data points and one for our z data points:

T_\text{abs}(h) = \frac{1}{8} \left(\sum_{i = 1}^3 |y_i - h| + \sum_{i = 1}^5 |z_i - h|\right)

Each of these two mini sums can be represented in terms of Y_\text{abs}(h) and Z_\text{abs}(h):

T_\text{abs}(h) = \frac{1}{8} \left(3 \cdot Y_\text{abs}(h) + 5 \cdot Z_\text{abs}(h)\right) T_\text{abs}(h) = \frac38 \cdot Y_\text{abs}(h) + \frac58 \cdot Z_\text{abs}(h)

By looking at this final equation we’ve built, it is clear that \alpha = \frac{3}{8} and \beta = \frac{5}{8}.

We can start by plugging z_1 into Y_\text{abs}(h):

Y_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{3} \left( | z - y_1 | + | z - y_2 | + |z - y_3| \right)

Since z_1 > y_3 > y_2 > y_1, all of the absolute values can be dropped and we can write:

Y_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{3} \left( (z_1 - y_1) + (z_1 - y_2) + (z_3 - y_3) \right)

This can be simplified to:

Y_\text{abs}(h) = \frac{1}{3} \left( 3z_1 - (y_1 + y_2 + y_3) \right) = \frac{1}{3} \left( 3z_1 - 3 \cdot \bar{y}\right) = z_1 - \bar{y} = z_1 - 2.

3.

We are given that T_\text{abs}(\text{median}) = 6. This means that any value (inclusive) between z_1 and z_2 minimize T_\text{abs}(h), with the output being always being 6. So, T_\text{abs}(z_1) = 6. Let’s see what happens when we plug this into T_\text{abs}(h) = \frac{3}{8} Y_\text{abs}(h) + \frac{5}{8} Z_\text{abs}(h) from earlier:

T_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{3}{8} Y_\text{abs}(z_1) + \frac{5}{8} Z_\text{abs}(z_1) (6) = \frac{3}{8} Y_\text{abs}(z_1) + \frac{5}{8} Z_\text{abs}(z_1)

If we could write Y_\text{abs}(z_1) and Z_\text{abs}(z_1) in terms of z_1, we could solve for z_1 and our work would be done, so let’s do that. Y_\text{abs}(z_1) = z_1 - 2 from earlier. Z_\text{abs}(z_1) simplifies as follows (knowing that \bar{z} = 12):

Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{5} \sum_{i = 1}^5 |z_i - z_1| Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{5} \left(|z_1 - z_1| + |z_2 - z_1| + |z_3 - z_1| + |z_4 - z_1| + |z_5 - z_1|\right) Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{5} \left(0 + (z_2 + z_3 + z_4 + z_5) - 4z_1\right) Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{5} \left((z_2 + z_3 + z_4 + z_5) - 4z_1 + (z_1 - z_1)\right) Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = \frac{1}{5} \left((z_1 + z_2 + z_3 + z_4 + z_5) - 5z_1\right) Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = \bar{z} - z_1 Z_\text{abs}(z_1) = (12) - z_1

Subbing back into our main equation:

(6) = \frac{3}{8} Y_\text{abs}(z_1) + \frac{5}{8} Z_\text{abs}(z_1) 6 = \frac{3}{8}(z_1 - 2) + \frac{5}{8}(12 - z_1) z_1 = 3