Reliable Risk Estimation with Kernel Mean Matching under Dependent Sampling
Organizations: Applied AI Institute
Abstract
Kernel Mean Matching (KMM) estimates risk under covariate shift by reweighting labelled source samples so that their kernel mean embedding matches that of unlabeled target samples. Existing finite-sample guarantees are usually stated for independent samples, although many applications involve temporal, spatial, or clustered dependence. We give a finite-sample KMM analysis under dependent sampling by replacing nominal sample sizes with effective sample sizes in the concentration steps used by the classical proof. The approach uses Bernstein inequalities for geometrically strongly mixing processes and derives a model-based effective sample size. The resulting bound separates overlap, dependence, and smoothness effects with specific constants derived under a Gaussian process assumption. This analysis yields an additional tradeoff: smoother losses preserve more input dependence and therefore reduce effective sample size, while also reducing function complexity and empirical-to-population risk gaps. Applying the result to prediction yields confidence intervals that achieve near-nominal coverage in synthetic experiments and substantially reduce undercoverage on real monitoring data.
Figures & tables
| Reference | Setting | Relation to Ours |
|---|---|---|
| ( Huang et al., 2006 ; Gretton et al., 2009 ) | Covariate shift KMM | Introduces KMM objective |
| ( Yu and Szepesvári, 2012 ) | Finite-sample bound | i.i.d. proof template |
| ( Roberts et al., 2017 ; Koldasbayeva and Zaytsev, 2025 ) | Spatio-temporal CV | Dependence motivation |
| ( Merlevède et al., 2009 ) | -mixing processes | Scalar concentration tools |
| This paper | Dependent KMM | Explicit bounds via |
| Target Mean ( ) | Target Risk ( ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Coverage | Radius | Coverage | Radius |
| Unweighted | 0.017 ∗ | 0.0362 | 0.080 ∗ | 0.0019 |
| Nominal | 0.917 ∗ | 0.0626 | 0.853 ∗ | 0.0055 |
| Block-Bootstrap | 1.000 | 0.4538 | 0.967 | 0.0133 |
| Input | 1.000 | 0.1696 | 0.987 | 0.0150 |
| GP [Ours] | 1.000 | 0.1380 | 0.970 | 0.0120 |
| Method | Coverage | Radius | WS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | Nominal | 0.773 ∗ | 0.0048 | 0.0275 |
| Input | 0.910 ∗ | 0.0128 | 0.0290 | |
| GP [Ours] | 0.943 | 0.0101 | 0.0260 | |
| 64 | Nominal | 0.773 ∗ | 0.0046 | 0.0218 |
| Input | 0.980 | 0.0124 | 0.0258 | |
| GP [Ours] | 0.947 | 0.0098 | 0.0217 |
| Target Mean ( ) | Target Risk ( ) | |||
| Method | Coverage | Radius | Coverage | Radius |
| Dataset: PM 2.5 (Temporal Shift) | ||||
| Unweighted | 0.604 ∗ | 0.0189 | 0.852 ∗ | 0.0016 |
| Nominal | 0.848 ∗ | 0.0672 | 0.900 ∗ | 0.0056 |
| Block-Bootstrap | 0.884 ∗ | 0.0832 | 0.916 ∗ | 0.0068 |
| Input | 0.928 | 0.1359 | 0.952 | 0.0104 |
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Symbol | Controls | Source of Value |
|---|---|---|
| Scalar average at deviation | Mixing Bernstein bound | |
| Source scalar effective size (moderate regime) | Long-run variance proxy | |
| RKHS empirical feature-matching (MMD) | Geometric block size | |
| GP-modeled conditional loss average | Closed-form GP covariance |
| Target Mean ( ) | Target Risk ( ) | |||||||
| Method | MAE | Coverage | Radius | WS | MAE | Coverage | Radius | WS |
| Unweighted | 0.1138 | 0.017 ∗ | 0.0362 | 3.182 | 0.0048 | 0.080 ∗ | 0.0019 | 0.119 |
| Nominal | 0.0196 | 0.917 ∗ | 0.0626 | 0.134 | 0.0025 | 0.853 ∗ | 0.0055 | 0.024 |
| Block-Bootstrap | 0.0196 | 1.000 | 0.4538 | 0.908 | 0.0025 | 0.967 | 0.0133 | 0.026 |
| Input | 0.0196 | 1.000 | 0.1696 | 0.339 | 0.0025 | 0.987 | 0.0150 | 0.031 |
| GP (Ours) | 0.0196 | 1.000 | 0.1380 | 0.276 | 0.0025 | 0.970 | 0.0120 | 0.026 |
| Method | Coverage | Radius | Winkler Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 | Unweighted | 0.717 ∗ | 0.0026 | 0.0201 |
| Nominal | 0.647 ∗ | 0.0047 | 0.0394 | |
| Input | 0.893 ∗ | 0.0123 | 0.0325 | |
| GP (Ours) | 0.850 ∗ | 0.0098 | 0.0313 | |
| 48 | Unweighted | 0.727 ∗ | 0.0022 | 0.0143 |
| Nominal | 0.773 ∗ | 0.0048 | 0.0275 |
| Method | Coverage | Radius | Winkler Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 | Unweighted | 0.843 ∗ | 0.0016 | 0.0061 |
| Nominal | 0.840 ∗ | 0.0041 | 0.0161 | |
| Input | 0.953 | 0.0078 | 0.0176 | |
| GP (Ours) | 0.923 ∗ | 0.0062 | 0.0159 | |
| 2.0 | Unweighted | 0.843 ∗ | 0.0016 | 0.0068 |
| Nominal | 0.870 ∗ | 0.0043 | 0.0143 |
| Method | Coverage | Radius | Winkler Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.00 | Unweighted | 0.173 ∗ | 0.0023 | 0.0749 |
| Nominal | 0.910 ∗ | 0.0062 | 0.0194 | |
| Input | 0.993 | 0.0167 | 0.0338 | |
| GP (Ours) | 0.983 | 0.0129 | 0.0271 | |
| 1.25 | Unweighted | 0.047 ∗ | 0.0018 | 0.1597 |
| Nominal | 0.917 ∗ | 0.0072 | 0.0183 |
| Method | Coverage | Radius | Winkler Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.0 | Unweighted | 0.767 ∗ | 0.0016 | 0.0100 |
| Nominal | 0.780 ∗ | 0.0030 | 0.0154 | |
| Input | 0.987 | 0.0082 | 0.0168 | |
| GP (Ours) | 0.963 | 0.0065 | 0.0141 | |
| 7.5 | Unweighted | 0.767 ∗ | 0.0016 | 0.0100 |
| Nominal | 0.803 ∗ | 0.0035 | 0.0147 |
| Data Kernel | Method | Coverage | Radius | WS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBF (Smooth) | Unweighted | 0.110 ∗ | 0.0022 | 0.113 |
| Nominal | 0.903 ∗ | 0.0076 | 0.023 | |
| Input | 0.993 | 0.0206 | 0.042 | |
| GP (Ours) | 0.987 | 0.0147 | 0.031 | |
| Matérn-5/2 | Unweighted | 0.623 ∗ | 0.0019 | 0.019 |
| Nominal | 0.850 ∗ | 0.0059 | 0.029 |
| Dependence Profile | Method | Coverage | Radius | WS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stationary | Unweighted | 0.700 ∗ | 0.0020 | 0.013 |
| Nominal | 0.900 ∗ | 0.0048 | 0.014 | |
| Input | 0.993 | 0.0120 | 0.024 | |
| GP (Ours) | 0.990 | 0.0099 | 0.020 | |
| Abrupt Switch | Unweighted | 0.717 ∗ | 0.0020 | 0.014 |
| Nominal | 0.880 ∗ | 0.0046 | 0.014 |
| MMD 2 | Oracle ESS | KMM ESS | Oracle Max | Unweighted MAE | Oracle MAE | KMM MAE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 0.0007 | 256.0 | 218.3 | 1.0 | 0.0380 | 0.0380 | 0.0381 |
| 0.5 | 0.0048 | 198.3 | 154.8 | 4.3 | 0.0461 | 0.0359 | 0.0355 |
| 1.0 | 0.0176 | 87.0 | 71.5 | 15.5 | 0.0789 | 0.0371 | 0.0354 |
| 1.5 | 0.0393 | 38.7 | 31.5 | 36.6 | 0.1203 | 0.0465 | 0.0365 |
| 2.0 | 0.0704 | 22.1 | 26.9 | 58.9 | 0.1634 | 0.0653 | 0.0460 |
| 3.0 | 0.1549 | 9.8 | 26.3 | 92.8 | 0.2403 | 0.1013 | 0.1260 |
| Data | Estimand | Unweighted | Log-IW | KMM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOAA | Target Mean ( ) | 0.0503 | 0.0389 | 0.0379 |
| PM 2.5 | Target Mean ( ) | 0.0208 | 0.0270 | 0.0155 |
| EPA Ozone | Target Mean ( ) | 0.0290 | 0.0245 | 0.0239 |
| NOAA | Target Risk ( ) | 0.00209 | 0.00205 | 0.00213 |
| PM 2.5 | Target Risk ( ) | 0.00214 | 0.00205 | 0.00244 |
| EPA Ozone | Target Risk ( ) | 0.00137 | 0.00109 | 0.00120 |
Kernel Methods
Kernel methods use similarity functions and reproducing kernel spaces to model nonlinear relationships, quantify uncertainty, and compare data.
See all 227 papers