A Connection Between Learning to Reject and Bhattacharyya Divergences

Alexander Soen
5/8/2025
stat.MLcs.ITcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Learning to reject provide a learning paradigm which allows for our models to abstain from making predictions. One way to learn the rejector is to learn an ideal marginal distribution (w.r.t. the input domain) - which characterizes a hypothetical best marginal distribution - and compares it to the true marginal distribution via a density ratio. In this paper, we consider learning a joint ideal distribution over both inputs and labels; and develop a link between rejection and thresholding different statistical divergences. We further find that when one considers a variant of the log-loss, the rejector obtained by considering the joint ideal distribution corresponds to the thresholding of the skewed Bhattacharyya divergence between class-probabilities. This is in contrast to the marginal case - that is equivalent to a typical characterization of optimal rejection, Chow's Rule - which corresponds to a thresholding of the Kullback-Leibler divergence. In general, we find that rejecting via a Bhattacharyya divergence is less aggressive than Chow's Rule.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{soen2025connection,
  title  = {A Connection Between Learning to Reject and Bhattacharyya Divergences},
  author = {Alexander Soen},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2505.05273},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05273v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2505.05273.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2505.05273)

Discussion