No Arabic abstract
This work develops rigorous theoretical basis for the fact that deep Bayesian neural network (BNN) is an effective tool for high-dimensional variable selection with rigorous uncertainty quantification. We develop new Bayesian non-parametric theorems to show that a properly configured deep BNN (1) learns the variable importance effectively in high dimensions, and its learning rate can sometimes break the curse of dimensionality. (2) BNNs uncertainty quantification for variable importance is rigorous, in the sense that its 95% credible intervals for variable importance indeed covers the truth 95% of the time (i.e., the Bernstein-von Mises (BvM) phenomenon). The theoretical results suggest a simple variable selection algorithm based on the BNNs credible intervals. Extensive simulation confirms the theoretical findings and shows that the proposed algorithm outperforms existing classic and neural-network-based variable selection methods, particularly in high dimensions.
Recent work has shown that the prior over functions induced by a deep Bayesian neural network (BNN) behaves as a Gaussian process (GP) as the width of all layers becomes large. However, many BNN applications are concerned with the BNN function space posterior. While some empirical evidence of the posterior convergence was provided in the original works of Neal (1996) and Matthews et al. (2018), it is limited to small datasets or architectures due to the notorious difficulty of obtaining and verifying exactness of BNN posterior approximations. We provide the missing theoretical proof that the exact BNN posterior converges (weakly) to the one induced by the GP limit of the prior. For empirical validation, we show how to generate exact samples from a finite BNN on a small dataset via rejection sampling.
Deep Learning methods are known to suffer from calibration issues: they typically produce over-confident estimates. These problems are exacerbated in the low data regime. Although the calibration of probabilistic models is well studied, calibrating extremely over-parametrized models in the low-data regime presents unique challenges. We show that deep-ensembles do not necessarily lead to improved calibration properties. In fact, we show that standard ensembling methods, when used in conjunction with modern techniques such as mixup regularization, can lead to less calibrated models. In this text, we examine the interplay between three of the most simple and commonly used approaches to leverage deep learning when data is scarce: data-augmentation, ensembling, and post-processing calibration methods. We demonstrate that, although standard ensembling techniques certainly help to boost accuracy, the calibration of deep-ensembles relies on subtle trade-offs. Our main finding is that calibration methods such as temperature scaling need to be slightly tweaked when used with deep-ensembles and, crucially, need to be executed after the averaging process. Our simulations indicate that, in the low data regime, this simple strategy can halve the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) on a range of benchmark classification problems when compared to standard deep-ensembles.
Spike-and-Slab Deep Learning (SS-DL) is a fully Bayesian alternative to Dropout for improving generalizability of deep ReLU networks. This new type of regularization enables provable recovery of smooth input-output maps with unknown levels of smoothness. Indeed, we show that the posterior distribution concentrates at the near minimax rate for $alpha$-Holder smooth maps, performing as well as if we knew the smoothness level $alpha$ ahead of time. Our result sheds light on architecture design for deep neural networks, namely the choice of depth, width and sparsity level. These network attributes typically depend on unknown smoothness in order to be optimal. We obviate this constraint with the fully Bayes construction. As an aside, we show that SS-DL does not overfit in the sense that the posterior concentrates on smaller networks with fewer (up to the optimal number of) nodes and links. Our results provide new theoretical justifications for deep ReLU networks from a Bayesian point of view.
Uncertainty quantification is essential when dealing with ill-conditioned inverse problems due to the inherent nonuniqueness of the solution. Bayesian approaches allow us to determine how likely an estimation of the unknown parameters is via formulating the posterior distribution. Unfortunately, it is often not possible to formulate a prior distribution that precisely encodes our prior knowledge about the unknown. Furthermore, adherence to handcrafted priors may greatly bias the outcome of the Bayesian analysis. To address this issue, we propose to use the functional form of a randomly initialized convolutional neural network as an implicit structured prior, which is shown to promote natural images and excludes images with unnatural noise. In order to incorporate the model uncertainty into the final estimate, we sample the posterior distribution using stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics and perform Bayesian model averaging on the obtained samples. Our synthetic numerical experiment verifies that deep priors combined with Bayesian model averaging are able to partially circumvent imaging artifacts and reduce the risk of overfitting in the presence of extreme noise. Finally, we present pointwise variance of the estimates as a measure of uncertainty, which coincides with regions that are more difficult to image.
Data augmentation is a highly effective approach for improving performance in deep neural networks. The standard view is that it creates an enlarged dataset by adding synthetic data, which raises a problem when combining it with Bayesian inference: how much data are we really conditioning on? This question is particularly relevant to recent observations linking data augmentation to the cold posterior effect. We investigate various principled ways of finding a log-likelihood for augmented datasets. Our approach prescribes augmenting the same underlying image multiple times, both at test and train-time, and averaging either the logits or the predictive probabilities. Empirically, we observe the best performance with averaging probabilities. While there are interactions with the cold posterior effect, neither averaging logits or averaging probabilities eliminates it.