Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDistribution-free uncertainty quantification for classification under label shift
124
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Trustworthy deployment of ML models requires a proper measure of uncertainty, especially in safety-critical applications. We focus on uncertainty quantification (UQ) for classification problems via two avenues -- prediction sets using conformal prediction and calibration of probabilistic predictors by post-hoc binning -- since these possess distribution-free guarantees for i.i.d. data. Two common ways of generalizing beyond the i.i.d. setting include handling covariate and label shift. Within the context of distribution-free UQ, the former has already received attention, but not the latter. It is known that label shift hurts prediction, and we first argue that it also hurts UQ, by showing degradation in coverage and calibration. Piggybacking on recent progress in addressing label shift (for better prediction), we examine the right way to achieve UQ by reweighting the aforementioned conformal and calibration procedures whenever some unlabeled data from the target distribution is available. We examine these techniques theoretically in a distribution-free framework and demonstrate their excellent practical performance.
rate research
Read More
Modern machine learning methods including deep learning have achieved great success in predictive accuracy for supervised learning tasks, but may still fall short in giving useful estimates of their predictive {em uncertainty}. Quantifying uncertainty is especially critical in real-world settings, which often involve input distributions that are shifted from the training distribution due to a variety of factors including sample bias and non-stationarity. In such settings, well calibrated uncertainty estimates convey information about when a models output should (or should not) be trusted. Many probabilistic deep learning methods, including Bayesian-and non-Bayesian methods, have been proposed in the literature for quantifying predictive uncertainty, but to our knowledge there has not previously been a rigorous large-scale empirical comparison of these methods under dataset shift. We present a large-scale benchmark of existing state-of-the-art methods on classification problems and investigate the effect of dataset shift on accuracy and calibration. We find that traditional post-hoc calibration does indeed fall short, as do several other previous methods. However, some methods that marginalize over models give surprisingly strong results across a broad spectrum of tasks.
Modern neural networks have proven to be powerful function approximators, providing state-of-the-art performance in a multitude of applications. They however fall short in their ability to quantify confidence in their predictions - this is crucial in high-stakes applications that involve critical decision-making. Bayesian neural networks (BNNs) aim at solving this problem by placing a prior distribution over the networks parameters, thereby inducing a posterior distribution that encapsulates predictive uncertainty. While existing variants of BNNs based on Monte Carlo dropout produce reliable (albeit approximate) uncertainty estimates over in-distribution data, they tend to exhibit over-confidence in predictions made on target data whose feature distribution differs from the training data, i.e., the covariate shift setup. In this paper, we develop an approximate Bayesian inference scheme based on posterior regularisation, wherein unlabelled target data are used as pseudo-labels of model confidence that are used to regularise the models loss on labelled source data. We show that this approach significantly improves the accuracy of uncertainty quantification on covariate-shifted data sets, with minimal modification to the underlying model architecture. We demonstrate the utility of our method in the context of transferring prognostic models of prostate cancer across globally diverse populations.
Multivariate Hawkes processes are commonly used to model streaming networked event data in a wide variety of applications. However, it remains a challenge to extract reliable inference from complex datasets with uncertainty quantification. Aiming towards this, we develop a statistical inference framework to learn causal relationships between nodes from networked data, where the underlying directed graph implies Granger causality. We provide uncertainty quantification for the maximum likelihood estimate of the network multivariate Hawkes process by providing a non-asymptotic confidence set. The main technique is based on the concentration inequalities of continuous-time martingales. We compare our method to the previously-derived asymptotic Hawkes process confidence interval, and demonstrate the strengths of our method in an application to neuronal connectivity reconstruction.
While causal models are becoming one of the mainstays of machine learning, the problem of uncertainty quantification in causal inference remains challenging. In this paper, we study the causal data fusion problem, where datasets pertaining to multiple causal graphs are combined to estimate the average treatment effect of a target variable. As data arises from multiple sources and can vary in quality and quantity, principled uncertainty quantification becomes essential. To that end, we introduce Bayesian Interventional Mean Processes, a framework which combines ideas from probabilistic integration and kernel mean embeddings to represent interventional distributions in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space, while taking into account the uncertainty within each causal graph. To demonstrate the utility of our uncertainty estimation, we apply our method to the Causal Bayesian Optimisation task and show improvements over state-of-the-art methods.
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.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
