Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Farewell to the Bias-Variance Tradeoff? An Overview of the Theory of Overparameterized Machine Learning
84
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The rapid recent progress in machine learning (ML) has raised a number of scientific questions that challenge the longstanding dogma of the field. One of the most important riddles is the good empirical generalization of overparameterized models. Overparameterized models are excessively complex with respect to the size of the training dataset, which results in them perfectly fitting (i.e., interpolating) the training data, which is usually noisy. Such interpolation of noisy data is traditionally associated with detrimental overfitting, and yet a wide range of interpolating models -- from simple linear models to deep neural networks -- have recently been observed to generalize extremely well on fresh test data. Indeed, the recently discovered double descent phenomenon has revealed that highly overparameterized models often improve over the best underparameterized model in test performance. Understanding learning in this overparameterized regime requires new theory and foundational empirical studies, even for the simplest case of the linear model. The underpinnings of this understanding have been laid in very recent analyses of overparameterized linear regression and related statistical learning tasks, which resulted in precise analytic characterizations of double descent. This paper provides a succinct overview of this emerging theory of overparameterized ML (henceforth abbreviated as TOPML) that explains these recent findings through a statistical signal processing perspective. We emphasize the unique aspects that define the TOPML research area as a subfield of modern ML theory and outline interesting open questions that remain.
rate research
Read More
Breakthroughs in machine learning are rapidly changing science and society, yet our fundamental understanding of this technology has lagged far behind. Indeed, one of the central tenets of the field, the bias-variance trade-off, appears to be at odds with the observed behavior of methods used in the modern machine learning practice. The bias-variance trade-off implies that a model should balance under-fitting and over-fitting: rich enough to express underlying structure in data, simple enough to avoid fitting spurious patterns. However, in the modern practice, very rich models such as neural networks are trained to exactly fit (i.e., interpolate) the data. Classically, such models would be considered over-fit, and yet they often obtain high accuracy on test data. This apparent contradiction has raised questions about the mathematical foundations of machine learning and their relevance to practitioners. In this paper, we reconcile the classical understanding and the modern practice within a unified performance curve. This double descent curve subsumes the textbook U-shaped bias-variance trade-off curve by showing how increasing model capacity beyond the point of interpolation results in improved performance. We provide evidence for the existence and ubiquity of double descent for a wide spectrum of models and datasets, and we posit a mechanism for its emergence. This connection between the performance and the structure of machine learning models delineates the limits of classical analyses, and has implications for both the theory and practice of machine learning.
We consider the problem of variance reduction in randomized controlled trials, through the use of covariates correlated with the outcome but independent of the treatment. We propose a machine learning regression-adjusted treatment effect estimator, which we call MLRATE. MLRATE uses machine learning predictors of the outcome to reduce estimator variance. It employs cross-fitting to avoid overfitting biases, and we prove consistency and asymptotic normality under general conditions. MLRATE is robust to poor predictions from the machine learning step: if the predictions are uncorrelated with the outcomes, the estimator performs asymptotically no worse than the standard difference-in-means estimator, while if predictions are highly correlated with outcomes, the efficiency gains are large. In A/A tests, for a set of 48 outcome metrics commonly monitored in Facebook experiments the estimator has over 70% lower variance than the simple difference-in-means estimator, and about 19% lower variance than the common univariate procedure which adjusts only for pre-experiment values of the outcome.
Machine Learning (ML) is one of the most exciting and dynamic areas of modern research and application. The purpose of this review is to provide an introduction to the core concepts and tools of machine learning in a manner easily understood and intuitive to physicists. The review begins by covering fundamental concepts in ML and modern statistics such as the bias-variance tradeoff, overfitting, regularization, generalization, and gradient descent before moving on to more advanced topics in both supervised and unsupervised learning. Topics covered in the review include ensemble models, deep learning and neural networks, clustering and data visualization, energy-based models (including MaxEnt models and Restricted Boltzmann Machines), and variational methods. Throughout, we emphasize the many natural connections between ML and statistical physics. A notable aspect of the review is the use of Python Jupyter notebooks to introduce modern ML/statistical packages to readers using physics-inspired datasets (the Ising Model and Monte-Carlo simulations of supersymmetric decays of proton-proton collisions). We conclude with an extended outlook discussing possible uses of machine learning for furthering our understanding of the physical world as well as open problems in ML where physicists may be able to contribute. (Notebooks are available at https://physics.bu.edu/~pankajm/MLnotebooks.html )
Classical learning theory suggests that the optimal generalization performance of a machine learning model should occur at an intermediate model complexity, with simpler models exhibiting high bias and more complex models exhibiting high variance of the predictive function. However, such a simple trade-off does not adequately describe deep learning models that simultaneously attain low bias and variance in the heavily overparameterized regime. A primary obstacle in explaining this behavior is that deep learning algorithms typically involve multiple sources of randomness whose individual contributions are not visible in the total variance. To enable fine-grained analysis, we describe an interpretable, symmetric decomposition of the variance into terms associated with the randomness from sampling, initialization, and the labels. Moreover, we compute the high-dimensional asymptotic behavior of this decomposition for random feature kernel regression, and analyze the strikingly rich phenomenology that arises. We find that the bias decreases monotonically with the network width, but the variance terms exhibit non-monotonic behavior and can diverge at the interpolation boundary, even in the absence of label noise. The divergence is caused by the emph{interaction} between sampling and initialization and can therefore be eliminated by marginalizing over samples (i.e. bagging) emph{or} over the initial parameters (i.e. ensemble learning).
This article provides an overview of Supervised Machine Learning (SML) with a focus on applications to banking. The SML techniques covered include Bagging (Random Forest or RF), Boosting (Gradient Boosting Machine or GBM) and Neural Networks (NNs). We begin with an introduction to ML tasks and techniques. This is followed by a description of: i) tree-based ensemble algorithms including Bagging with RF and Boosting with GBMs, ii) Feedforward NNs, iii) a discussion of hyper-parameter optimization techniques, and iv) machine learning interpretability. The paper concludes with a comparison of the features of different ML algorithms. Examples taken from credit risk modeling in banking are used throughout the paper to illustrate the techniques and interpret the results of the algorithms.
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
