arXiv daily

Machine Learning (stat.ML)

Tue, 16 May 2023

Other arXiv digests in this category:Thu, 14 Sep 2023; Wed, 13 Sep 2023; Tue, 12 Sep 2023; Mon, 11 Sep 2023; Fri, 08 Sep 2023; Tue, 05 Sep 2023; Fri, 01 Sep 2023; Thu, 31 Aug 2023; Wed, 30 Aug 2023; Tue, 29 Aug 2023; Mon, 28 Aug 2023; Fri, 25 Aug 2023; Thu, 24 Aug 2023; Wed, 23 Aug 2023; Tue, 22 Aug 2023; Mon, 21 Aug 2023; Fri, 18 Aug 2023; Thu, 17 Aug 2023; Wed, 16 Aug 2023; Tue, 15 Aug 2023; Fri, 11 Aug 2023; Thu, 10 Aug 2023; Tue, 08 Aug 2023; Mon, 07 Aug 2023; Fri, 04 Aug 2023; Thu, 03 Aug 2023; Wed, 02 Aug 2023; Tue, 01 Aug 2023; Mon, 31 Jul 2023; Fri, 28 Jul 2023; Thu, 27 Jul 2023; Wed, 26 Jul 2023; Tue, 25 Jul 2023; Mon, 24 Jul 2023; Thu, 20 Jul 2023; Wed, 19 Jul 2023; Tue, 18 Jul 2023; Mon, 17 Jul 2023; Thu, 13 Jul 2023; Wed, 12 Jul 2023; Tue, 11 Jul 2023; Mon, 10 Jul 2023; Fri, 07 Jul 2023; Thu, 06 Jul 2023; Wed, 05 Jul 2023; Tue, 04 Jul 2023; Mon, 03 Jul 2023; Fri, 30 Jun 2023; Thu, 29 Jun 2023; Tue, 27 Jun 2023; Mon, 26 Jun 2023; Fri, 23 Jun 2023; Thu, 22 Jun 2023; Wed, 21 Jun 2023; Tue, 20 Jun 2023; Fri, 16 Jun 2023; Thu, 15 Jun 2023; Tue, 13 Jun 2023; Mon, 12 Jun 2023; Fri, 09 Jun 2023; Thu, 08 Jun 2023; Wed, 07 Jun 2023; Tue, 06 Jun 2023; Mon, 05 Jun 2023; Fri, 02 Jun 2023; Thu, 01 Jun 2023; Wed, 31 May 2023; Tue, 30 May 2023; Mon, 29 May 2023; Fri, 26 May 2023; Thu, 25 May 2023; Wed, 24 May 2023; Tue, 23 May 2023; Mon, 22 May 2023; Fri, 19 May 2023; Thu, 18 May 2023; Wed, 17 May 2023; Mon, 15 May 2023; Fri, 12 May 2023; Thu, 11 May 2023; Wed, 10 May 2023; Tue, 09 May 2023; Mon, 08 May 2023; Fri, 05 May 2023; Thu, 04 May 2023; Wed, 03 May 2023; Tue, 02 May 2023; Mon, 01 May 2023; Fri, 28 Apr 2023; Thu, 27 Apr 2023; Wed, 26 Apr 2023; Tue, 25 Apr 2023; Mon, 24 Apr 2023; Fri, 21 Apr 2023; Thu, 20 Apr 2023; Wed, 19 Apr 2023; Tue, 18 Apr 2023; Mon, 17 Apr 2023; Fri, 14 Apr 2023; Thu, 13 Apr 2023; Tue, 11 Apr 2023; Mon, 10 Apr 2023
1.Lp- and Risk Consistency of Localized SVMs

Authors:Hannes Köhler

Abstract: Kernel-based regularized risk minimizers, also called support vector machines (SVMs), are known to possess many desirable properties but suffer from their super-linear computational requirements when dealing with large data sets. This problem can be tackled by using localized SVMs instead, which also offer the additional advantage of being able to apply different hyperparameters to different regions of the input space. In this paper, localized SVMs are analyzed with regards to their consistency. It is proven that they inherit $L_p$- as well as risk consistency from global SVMs under very weak conditions and even if the regions underlying the localized SVMs are allowed to change as the size of the training data set increases.

2.A Comparative Study of Methods for Estimating Conditional Shapley Values and When to Use Them

Authors:Lars Henry Berge Olsen, Ingrid Kristine Glad, Martin Jullum, Kjersti Aas

Abstract: Shapley values originated in cooperative game theory but are extensively used today as a model-agnostic explanation framework to explain predictions made by complex machine learning models in the industry and academia. There are several algorithmic approaches for computing different versions of Shapley value explanations. Here, we focus on conditional Shapley values for predictive models fitted to tabular data. Estimating precise conditional Shapley values is difficult as they require the estimation of non-trivial conditional expectations. In this article, we develop new methods, extend earlier proposed approaches, and systematize the new refined and existing methods into different method classes for comparison and evaluation. The method classes use either Monte Carlo integration or regression to model the conditional expectations. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate how precisely the different method classes estimate the conditional expectations, and thereby the conditional Shapley values, for different setups. We also apply the methods to several real-world data experiments and provide recommendations for when to use the different method classes and approaches. Roughly speaking, we recommend using parametric methods when we can specify the data distribution almost correctly, as they generally produce the most accurate Shapley value explanations. When the distribution is unknown, both generative methods and regression models with a similar form as the underlying predictive model are good and stable options. Regression-based methods are often slow to train but produce the Shapley value explanations quickly once trained. The vice versa is true for Monte Carlo-based methods, making the different methods appropriate in different practical situations.

3.Toward Falsifying Causal Graphs Using a Permutation-Based Test

Authors:Elias Eulig, Atalanti A. Mastakouri, Patrick Blöbaum, Michaela Hardt, Dominik Janzing

Abstract: Understanding the causal relationships among the variables of a system is paramount to explain and control its behaviour. Inferring the causal graph from observational data without interventions, however, requires a lot of strong assumptions that are not always realistic. Even for domain experts it can be challenging to express the causal graph. Therefore, metrics that quantitatively assess the goodness of a causal graph provide helpful checks before using it in downstream tasks. Existing metrics provide an absolute number of inconsistencies between the graph and the observed data, and without a baseline, practitioners are left to answer the hard question of how many such inconsistencies are acceptable or expected. Here, we propose a novel consistency metric by constructing a surrogate baseline through node permutations. By comparing the number of inconsistencies with those on the surrogate baseline, we derive an interpretable metric that captures whether the DAG fits significantly better than random. Evaluating on both simulated and real data sets from various domains, including biology and cloud monitoring, we demonstrate that the true DAG is not falsified by our metric, whereas the wrong graphs given by a hypothetical user are likely to be falsified.

4.Expressiveness Remarks for Denoising Diffusion Models and Samplers

Authors:Francisco Vargas, Teodora Reu, Anna Kerekes

Abstract: Denoising diffusion models are a class of generative models which have recently achieved state-of-the-art results across many domains. Gradual noise is added to the data using a diffusion process, which transforms the data distribution into a Gaussian. Samples from the generative model are then obtained by simulating an approximation of the time reversal of this diffusion initialized by Gaussian samples. Recent research has explored adapting diffusion models for sampling and inference tasks. In this paper, we leverage known connections to stochastic control akin to the F\"ollmer drift to extend established neural network approximation results for the F\"ollmer drift to denoising diffusion models and samplers.

5.Balancing Risk and Reward: An Automated Phased Release Strategy

Authors:Yufan Li, Jialiang Mao, Iavor Bojinov

Abstract: Phased releases are a common strategy in the technology industry for gradually releasing new products or updates through a sequence of A/B tests in which the number of treated units gradually grows until full deployment or deprecation. Performing phased releases in a principled way requires selecting the proportion of units assigned to the new release in a way that balances the risk of an adverse effect with the need to iterate and learn from the experiment rapidly. In this paper, we formalize this problem and propose an algorithm that automatically determines the release percentage at each stage in the schedule, balancing the need to control risk while maximizing ramp-up speed. Our framework models the challenge as a constrained batched bandit problem that ensures that our pre-specified experimental budget is not depleted with high probability. Our proposed algorithm leverages an adaptive Bayesian approach in which the maximal number of units assigned to the treatment is determined by the posterior distribution, ensuring that the probability of depleting the remaining budget is low. Notably, our approach analytically solves the ramp sizes by inverting probability bounds, eliminating the need for challenging rare-event Monte Carlo simulation. It only requires computing means and variances of outcome subsets, making it highly efficient and parallelizable.