Binary classification is an important problem in many areas such as computer vision, natural language processing, and bioinformatics. Binary classification learning algorithms result in a function that outputs a real-valued predicted score (larger for more likely to be in the positive class). The prediction accuracy of learned binary classification models can be quantified using the zero-one loss, which corresponds to thresholding the predicted score at zero. Because it only considers one prediction threshold (the default), this evaluation metric can be problematic and/or misleading in some cases (data sets with extreme class imbalance, models with different false positive rates). A more comprehensive and fair evaluation method involves the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve, which involves plotting True Positive Rate versus False Positive Rate, for all thresholds of the predicted score [Egan and Egan, 1975]. The Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) takes values between zero and one; constant/random/un-informed predictions yield AUC=0.5 and a set of perfect predictions would achieve AUC=1. It is therefore desirable to create learning algorithms that maximize AUC, and that criterion is often used for hyper-parameter selection. However, for gradient descent learning it is impossible to directly use the AUC since it is a piecewise constant function of the predicted values (the gradient is zero almost everywhere). Various authors have proposed to work around this issue by using convex relaxations of the Mann-Whitney statistic [Bamber, 1975], which involves a double sum over all pairs of positive and negative examples.

The parameters of a machine learning model are typically learned by minimizing a loss function on a set of training data. However, this can come with the risk of overtraining; in order for the model to generalize well, it is of great importance that we are able to find the optimal parameter for the model on the entire population -- not only on the given training sample. In this paper, we construct valid confidence sets for this optimal parameter of a machine learning model, which can be generated using only the training data without any knowledge of the population. We then show that studying the distribution of this confidence set allows us to assign a notion of confidence to arbitrary regions of the parameter space, and we demonstrate that this distribution can be well-approximated using bootstrapping techniques.

The current certification process for aerospace software is not adapted to "AI-based" algorithms such as deep neural networks. Unlike traditional aerospace software, the precise parameters optimized during neural network training are as important as (or more than) the code processing the network and they are not directly mathematically understandable. Despite their lack of explainability such algorithms are appealing because for some applications they can exhibit high performance unattainable with any traditional explicit line-by-line software methods. This paper proposes a framework and principles that could be used to establish certification methods for neural network models for which the current certification processes such as DO-178 cannot be applied. While it is not a magic recipe, it is a set of common sense steps that will allow the applicant and the regulator increase their confidence in the developed software, by demonstrating the capabilities to bring together, trace, and track the requirements, data, software, training process, and test results.

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder that affects a significant portion of the human population and imposes serious risks in the daily life of patients. Despite advances in machine learning and IoT, small, nonstigmatizing wearable devices for continuous monitoring and detection in outpatient environments are not yet available. Part of the reason is the complexity of epilepsy itself, including highly imbalanced data, multimodal nature, and very subject-specific signatures. However, another problem is the heterogeneity of methodological approaches in research, leading to slower progress, difficulty comparing results, and low reproducibility. Therefore, this article identifies a wide range of methodological decisions that must be made and reported when training and evaluating the performance of epilepsy detection systems. We characterize the influence of individual choices using a typical ensemble random-forest model and the publicly available CHB-MIT database, providing a broader picture of each decision and giving good-practice recommendations, based on our experience, where possible.

How can one meaningfully make a measurement, if the meter does not conform to any standard and its scale expands or shrinks depending on what is measured? In the present work it is argued that current evaluation practices for machine-learning classifiers are affected by this kind of problem, leading to negative consequences when classifiers are put to real use; consequences that could have been avoided. It is proposed that evaluation be grounded on Decision Theory, and the implications of such foundation are explored. The main result is that every evaluation metric must be a linear combination of confusion-matrix elements, with coefficients - "utilities" - that depend on the specific classification problem. For binary classification, the space of such possible metrics is effectively two-dimensional. It is shown that popular metrics such as precision, balanced accuracy, Matthews Correlation Coefficient, Fowlkes-Mallows index, F1-measure, and Area Under the Curve are never optimal: they always give rise to an in-principle avoidable fraction of incorrect evaluations. This fraction is even larger than would be caused by the use of a decision-theoretic metric with moderately wrong coefficients.

When working with models, you need to remember that different algorithms have different learning patterns when taking in data. It is a form of intuitive learning, to help the model learn the patterns in the given dataset, known as training the model. The model will then be tested on the testing dataset, a dataset the model has not seen before. You want to achieve an optimum performance level where the model can produce accurate outputs on both the training and testing dataset. You may have also heard of the validation set.

Evolutionary Computation algorithms have been used to solve optimization problems in relation with architectural, hyper-parameter or training configuration, forging the field known today as Neural Architecture Search. These algorithms have been combined with other techniques such as the pruning of Neural Networks, which reduces the complexity of the network, and the Transfer Learning, which lets the import of knowledge from another problem related to the one at hand. The usage of several criteria to evaluate the quality of the evolutionary proposals is also a common case, in which the performance and complexity of the network are the most used criteria. This work proposes MO-EvoPruneDeepTL, a multi-objective evolutionary pruning algorithm. \proposal uses Transfer Learning to adapt the last layers of Deep Neural Networks, by replacing them with sparse layers evolved by a genetic algorithm, which guides the evolution based in the performance, complexity and robustness of the network, being the robustness a great quality indicator for the evolved models. We carry out different experiments with several datasets to assess the benefits of our proposal. Results show that our proposal achieves promising results in all the objectives, and direct relation are presented among them. The experiments also show that the most influential neurons help us explain which parts of the input images are the most relevant for the prediction of the pruned neural network. Lastly, by virtue of the diversity within the Pareto front of pruning patterns produced by the proposal, it is shown that an ensemble of differently pruned models improves the overall performance and robustness of the trained networks.

Autonomous vehicles currently suffer from a time-inefficient driving style caused by uncertainty about human behavior in traffic interactions. Accurate and reliable prediction models enabling more efficient trajectory planning could make autonomous vehicles more assertive in such interactions. However, the evaluation of such models is commonly oversimplistic, ignoring the asymmetric importance of prediction errors and the heterogeneity of the datasets used for testing. We examine the potential of recasting interactions between vehicles as gap acceptance scenarios and evaluating models in this structured environment. To that end, we develop a framework aiming to facilitate the evaluation of any model, by any metric, and in any scenario. We then apply this framework to state-of-the-art prediction models, which all show themselves to be unreliable in the most safety-critical situations.

In this paper we present a heuristic method to provide individual explanations for those elements in a dataset (data points) which are wrongly predicted by a given classifier. Since the general case is too difficult, in the present work we focus on faulty data from an underfitted model. First, we project the faulty data into a hand-crafted, and thus human readable, intermediate representation (meta-representation, profile vectors), with the aim of separating the two main causes of miss-classification: the classifier is not strong enough, or the data point belongs to an area of the input space where classes are not separable. Second, in the space of these profile vectors, we present a method to fit a meta-classifier (decision tree) and express its output as a set of interpretable (human readable) explanation rules, which leads to several target diagnosis labels: data point is either correctly classified, or faulty due to a too weak model, or faulty due to mixed (overlapped) classes in the input space. Experimental results on several real datasets show more than 80% diagnosis label accuracy and confirm that the proposed intermediate representation allows to achieve a high degree of invariance with respect to the classifier used in the input space and to the dataset being classified, i.e. we can learn the metaclassifier on a dataset with a given classifier and successfully predict diagnosis labels for a different dataset or classifier (or both).

Van Miltenburg et al. (2021) suggest NLP research should adopt preregistration to prevent fishing expeditions and to promote publication of negative results. At face value, this is a very reasonable suggestion, seemingly solving many methodological problems with NLP research. We discuss pros and cons -- some old, some new: a) Preregistration is challenged by the practice of retrieving hypotheses after the results are known; b) preregistration may bias NLP toward confirmatory research; c) preregistration must allow for reclassification of research as exploratory; d) preregistration may increase publication bias; e) preregistration may increase flag-planting; f) preregistration may increase p-hacking; and finally, g) preregistration may make us less risk tolerant. We cast our discussion as a dialogue, presenting both sides of the debate.