Label efficiency has become an increasingly important objective in deep learning applications. Active learning aims to reduce the number of labeled examples needed to train deep networks, but the empirical performance of active learning algorithms can vary dramatically across datasets and applications. It is difficult to know in advance which active learning strategy will perform well or best in a given application. To address this, we propose the first adaptive algorithm selection strategy for deep active learning. For any unlabeled dataset, our (meta) algorithm TAILOR(Thompson ActIve Learning algORithm selection) iteratively and adaptively chooses among a set of candidate active learning algorithms. TAILORuses novel reward functions aimed at gathering class-balanced examples. Extensive experiments in multi-class and multi-label applications demonstrate TAILOR's effectiveness in achieving accuracy comparable or better than that of the best of the candidate algorithms. Our implementation of TAILOR is open-sourced at https://github.com/jifanz/TAILOR.

Modern machine learning systems such as deep neural networks are often highly over-parameterized so that they can fit the noisy training data exactly, yet they can still achieve small test errors in practice. In this paper, we study this "benign overfitting" phenomenon of the maximum margin classifier for linear classification problems. Specifically, we consider data generated from sub-Gaussian mixtures, and provide a tight risk bound for the maximum margin linear classifier in the over-parameterized setting. Our results precisely characterize the condition under which benign overfitting can occur in linear classification problems, and improve on previous work. They also have direct implications for over-parameterized logistic regression.

Federated learning aims to learn a global model that performs well on client devices with limited cross-client communication. Personalized federated learning (PFL) further extends this setup to handle data heterogeneity between clients by learning personalized models. A key challenge in this setting is to learn effectively across clients even though each client has unique data that is often limited in size. Here we present pFedGP, a solution to PFL that is based on Gaussian processes (GPs) with deep kernel learning. GPs are highly expressive models that work well in the low data regime due to their Bayesian nature.

Crucial for building trust in deep learning models for critical real-world applications is efficient and theoretically sound uncertainty quantification, a task that continues to be challenging. Useful uncertainty information is expected to have two key properties: It should be valid (guaranteeing coverage) and discriminative (more uncertain when the expected risk is high). Moreover, when combined with deep learning (DL) methods, it should be scalable and affect the DL model performance minimally. Most existing Bayesian methods lack frequentist coverage guarantees and usually affect model performance. The few available frequentist methods are rarely discriminative and/or violate coverage guarantees due to unrealistic assumptions. Moreover, many methods are expensive or require substantial modifications to the base neural network. Building upon recent advances in conformal prediction [13, 33] and leveraging the classical idea of kernel regression, we propose Locally Valid and Discriminative prediction intervals (LVD), a simple, efficient and lightweight method to construct discriminative prediction intervals (PIs) for almost any DL model. With no assumptions on the data distribution, such PIs also offer finite-sample local coverage guarantees (contrasted to the simpler marginal coverage). We empirically verify, using diverse datasets, that besides being the only locally valid method for DL, LVD also exceeds or matches the performance (including coverage rate and prediction accuracy) of existing uncertainty quantification methods, while offering additional benefits in scalability and flexibility.

Let ϑ Rd1 and µ Rd2 be the dual variables corresponding to the d1 equality constraints and the d2 inequality constraints respectively. Let X? be an optimal solution to (SDP) and let X?FW be an optimal solution to (SDP-LSE). For ease of notation, let u= A(1)(X) b(1) andv = b(2) A(2)(X), (1) and define (bu,bv), (uFW,vFW) and (u?,v?) by substituting bX, XFW and X? respectively in (1). Upper bound on the objective. Rearranging the terms, using the duality of the `1 and ` norms, and the fact that µ? 0, gives hC, bX i hC,X?i+