Goto

Collaborating Authors

 Bayesian Inference


Energy-Based Reranking: Improving Neural Machine Translation Using Energy-Based Models

arXiv.org Machine Learning

The discrepancy between maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and task measures such as BLEU score has been studied before for autoregressive neural machine translation (NMT) and resulted in alternative training algorithms (Ranzato et al., 2016; Norouzi et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2018). However, MLE training remains the de facto approach for autoregressive NMT because of its computational efficiency and stability. Despite this mismatch between the training objective and task measure, we notice that the samples drawn from an MLE-based trained NMT support the desired distribution -- there are samples with much higher BLEU score comparing to the beam decoding output. To benefit from this observation, we train an energy-based model to mimic the behavior of the task measure (i.e., the energy-based model assigns lower energy to samples with higher BLEU score), which is resulted in a re-ranking algorithm based on the samples drawn from NMT: energy-based re-ranking (EBR). Our EBR consistently improves the performance of the Transformer-based NMT: +3 BLEU points on Sinhala-English, +2.0 BLEU points on IWSLT'17 French-English, and +1.7 BLEU points on WMT'19 German-English tasks.


Nearly Optimal Variational Inference for High Dimensional Regression with Shrinkage Priors

arXiv.org Machine Learning

We propose a variational Bayesian (VB) procedure for high-dimensional linear model inferences with heavy tail shrinkage priors, such as student-t prior. Theoretically, we establish the consistency of the proposed VB method and prove that under the proper choice of prior specifications, the contraction rate of the VB posterior is nearly optimal. It justifies the validity of VB inference as an alternative of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling. Meanwhile, comparing to conventional MCMC methods, the VB procedure achieves much higher computational efficiency, which greatly alleviates the computing burden for modern machine learning applications such as massive data analysis. Through numerical studies, we demonstrate that the proposed VB method leads to shorter computing time, higher estimation accuracy, and lower variable selection error than competitive sparse Bayesian methods.


Variational Bayesian Unlearning

arXiv.org Machine Learning

This paper studies the problem of approximately unlearning a Bayesian model from a small subset of the training data to be erased. We frame this problem as one of minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the approximate posterior belief of model parameters after directly unlearning from erased data vs. the exact posterior belief from retraining with remaining data. Using the variational inference (VI) framework, we show that it is equivalent to minimizing an evidence upper bound which trades off between fully unlearning from erased data vs. not entirely forgetting the posterior belief given the full data (i.e., including the remaining data); the latter prevents catastrophic unlearning that can render the model useless. In model training with VI, only an approximate (instead of exact) posterior belief given the full data can be obtained, which makes unlearning even more challenging. We propose two novel tricks to tackle this challenge. We empirically demonstrate our unlearning methods on Bayesian models such as sparse Gaussian process and logistic regression using synthetic and real-world datasets.


Collaborative Machine Learning with Incentive-Aware Model Rewards

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Collaborative machine learning (ML) is an appealing paradigm to build high-quality ML models by training on the aggregated data from many parties. However, these parties are only willing to share their data when given enough incentives, such as a guaranteed fair reward based on their contributions. This motivates the need for measuring a party's contribution and designing an incentive-aware reward scheme accordingly. This paper proposes to value a party's reward based on Shapley value and information gain on model parameters given its data. Subsequently, we give each party a model as a reward. To formally incentivize the collaboration, we define some desirable properties (e.g., fairness and stability) which are inspired by cooperative game theory but adapted for our model reward that is uniquely freely replicable. Then, we propose a novel model reward scheme to satisfy fairness and trade off between the desirable properties via an adjustable parameter. The value of each party's model reward determined by our scheme is attained by injecting Gaussian noise to the aggregated training data with an optimized noise variance. We empirically demonstrate interesting properties of our scheme and evaluate its performance using synthetic and real-world datasets.


VINNAS: Variational Inference-based Neural Network Architecture Search

arXiv.org Machine Learning

In recent years, neural architecture search (NAS) has received intensive scientific and industrial interest due to its capability of finding a neural architecture with high accuracy for various artificial intelligence tasks such as image classification or object detection. In particular, gradient-based NAS approaches have become one of the more popular approaches thanks to their computational efficiency during the search. However, these methods often experience a mode collapse, where the quality of the found architectures is poor due to the algorithm resorting to choosing a single operation type for the entire network, or stagnating at a local minima for various datasets or search spaces. To address these defects, we present a differentiable variational inference-based NAS method for searching sparse convolutional neural networks. Our approach finds the optimal neural architecture by dropping out candidate operations in an over-parameterised supergraph using variational dropout with automatic relevance determination prior, which makes the algorithm gradually remove unnecessary operations and connections without risking mode collapse. The evaluation is conducted through searching two types of convolutional cells that shape the neural network for classifying different image datasets. Our method finds diverse network cells, while showing state-of-the-art accuracy with up to almost 2 times fewer non-zero parameters.


Bayesian Deep Ensembles via the Neural Tangent Kernel

arXiv.org Machine Learning

We explore the link between deep ensembles and Gaussian processes (GPs) through the lens of the Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK): a recent development in understanding the training dynamics of wide neural networks (NNs). Previous work has shown that even in the infinite width limit, when NNs become GPs, there is no GP posterior interpretation to a deep ensemble trained with squared error loss. We introduce a simple modification to standard deep ensembles training, through addition of a computationally-tractable, randomised and untrainable function to each ensemble member, that enables a posterior interpretation in the infinite width limit. When ensembled together, our trained NNs give an approximation to a posterior predictive distribution, and we prove that our Bayesian deep ensembles make more conservative predictions than standard deep ensembles in the infinite width limit. Finally, using finite width NNs we demonstrate that our Bayesian deep ensembles faithfully emulate the analytic posterior predictive when available, and can outperform standard deep ensembles in various out-of-distribution settings, for both regression and classification tasks.


Is SGD a Bayesian sampler? Well, almost

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Overparameterised deep neural networks (DNNs) are highly expressive and so can, in principle, generate almost any function that fits a training dataset with zero error. The vast majority of these functions will perform poorly on unseen data, and yet in practice DNNs often generalise remarkably well. This success suggests that a trained DNN must have a strong inductive bias towards functions with low generalisation error. Here we empirically investigate this inductive bias by calculating, for a range of architectures and datasets, the probability $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$ that an overparameterised DNN, trained with stochastic gradient descent (SGD) or one of its variants, converges on a function $f$ consistent with a training set $S$. We also use Gaussian processes to estimate the Bayesian posterior probability $P_B(f\mid S)$ that the DNN expresses $f$ upon random sampling of its parameters, conditioned on $S$. Our main findings are that $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$ correlates remarkably well with $P_B(f\mid S)$ and that $P_B(f\mid S)$ is strongly biased towards low-error and low complexity functions. These results imply that strong inductive bias in the parameter-function map (which determines $P_B(f\mid S)$), rather than a special property of SGD, is the primary explanation for why DNNs generalise so well in the overparameterised regime. While our results suggest that the Bayesian posterior $P_B(f\mid S)$ is the first order determinant of $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$, there remain second order differences that are sensitive to hyperparameter tuning. A function probability picture, based on $P_{SGD}(f\mid S)$ and/or $P_B(f\mid S)$, can shed new light on the way that variations in architecture or hyperparameter settings such as batch size, learning rate, and optimiser choice, affect DNN performance.


PAC-Bayes Analysis Beyond the Usual Bounds

arXiv.org Machine Learning

We focus on a stochastic learning model where the learner observes a finite set of training examples and the output of the learning process is a data-dependent distribution over a space of hypotheses. The learned data-dependent distribution is then used to make randomized predictions, and the high-level theme addressed here is guaranteeing the quality of predictions on examples that were not seen during training, i.e. generalization. In this setting the unknown quantity of interest is the expected risk of the data-dependent randomized predictor, for which upper bounds can be derived via a PAC-Bayes analysis, leading to PAC-Bayes bounds. Specifically, we present a basic PAC-Bayes inequality for stochastic kernels, from which one may derive extensions of various known PAC-Bayes bounds as well as novel bounds. We clarify the role of the requirements of fixed 'data-free' priors, bounded losses, and i.i.d. data. We highlight that those requirements were used to upper-bound an exponential moment term, while the basic PAC-Bayes theorem remains valid without those restrictions. We present three bounds that illustrate the use of data-dependent priors, including one for the unbounded square loss.


Implicit Variational Inference: the Parameter and the Predictor Space

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Having access to accurate confidence levels along with the predictions allows to determine whether making a decision is worth the risk. Under the Bayesian paradigm, the posterior distribution over parameters is used to capture model uncertainty, a valuable information that can be translated into predictive uncertainty. However, computing the posterior distribution for high capacity predictors, such as neural networks, is generally intractable, making approximate methods such as variational inference a promising alternative. While most methods perform inference in the space of parameters, we explore the benefits of carrying inference directly in the space of predictors. Relying on a family of distributions given by a deep generative neural network, we present two ways of carrying variational inference: one in \emph{parameter space}, one in \emph{predictor space}. Importantly, the latter requires us to choose a distribution of inputs, therefore allowing us at the same time to explicitly address the question of \emph{out-of-distribution} uncertainty. We explore from various perspectives the implications of working in the predictor space induced by neural networks as opposed to the parameter space, focusing mainly on the quality of uncertainty estimation for data lying outside of the training distribution. We compare posterior approximations obtained with these two methods to several standard methods and present results showing that variational approximations learned in the predictor space distinguish themselves positively from those trained in the parameter space.


From the Expectation Maximisation Algorithm to Autoencoded Variational Bayes

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Although the expectation maximisation (EM) algorithm was introduced in 1970, it remains somewhat inaccessible to machine learning practitioners due to its obscure notation, terse proofs and lack of concrete links to modern machine learning techniques like autoencoded variational Bayes. This has resulted in gaps in the AI literature concerning the meaning of such concepts like ``latent variables'' and ``variational lower bound,'' which are frequently used but often not clearly explained. The roots of these ideas lie in the EM algorithm. We first give a tutorial presentation of the EM algorithm for estimating the parameters of a $K$-component mixture density. The Gaussian mixture case is presented in detail using $K$-ary scalar hidden (or latent) variables rather than the more traditional binary valued $K$-dimenional vectors. This presentation is motivated by mixture modelling from the target tracking literature. In a similar style to Bishop's 2009 book, we present variational Bayesian inference as a generalised EM algorithm stemming from the variational (or evidential) lower bound, as well as the technique of mean field approximation (or product density transform). We continue the evolution from EM to variational autoencoders, developed by Kingma & Welling in 2014. In so doing, we establish clear links between the EM algorithm and its variational counterparts, hence clarifying the meaning of ``latent variables.'' We provide a detailed coverage of the ``reparametrisation trick'' and focus on how the AEVB differs from conventional variational Bayesian inference. Throughout the tutorial, consistent notational conventions are used. This unifies the narrative and clarifies the concepts. Some numerical examples are given to further illustrate the algorithms.