Goto

Collaborating Authors

 example 3


Comparing Two Categorical Gini Correlations with Applications to Classification Problems

arXiv.org Machine Learning

This article proposes an inferential framework for comparing predictor importance in classification problems with categorical response variables. The approach is based on the categorical Gini correlation (CGC) proposed by Dang et al. (2020), a measure of dependence between numerical predictors and categorical outcomes. Predictor importance is evaluated by testing differences in CGCs across competing predictor groups. The proposed methodology accommodates predictors of arbitrary and unequal dimensions and allows for dependence between predictor groups. Asymptotic normality of the test statistic is established under both the null and alternative hypotheses, and the resulting test is shown to be consistent. In addition to deriving the asymptotic distribution, a nonparametric bootstrap procedure is developed as an alternative approach to inference. Simulation studies, along with applications to breast cancer and human activity recognition datasets, demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.


Ratio-based Loss Functions

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Algorithms in machine learning and AI do critically depend on at least three key components: (i) the risk function, which is the expectation of the loss function, (ii) the function space, which is often called the hypothesis space, and (iii) the set of probability measures, which are allowed for the specified algorithm. This paper gives a survey of a certain class of loss functions, which we call ratio-based. In supervised learning, margin-based loss functions for classification tasks depending on the product of the output values $y_i$ and the predictions $f(x_i)$ as well as distance-based loss functions depending on the difference of $y_i$ and $f(x_i)$ for regression are common. Distance-based loss functions are in particular useful, if an additive model assumption seems plausible, i.e. the common signal plus noise assumption. However, in the literature, several loss functions proposed for regression purposes have a multiplicative error structure in mind and pay attention to relative errors, i.e. to the ratio of $y_i$ and $f(x_i)$. In this survey article, we systematically investigate such ratio-based loss functions and propose a few new losses, which may be interesting for future research. We concentrate on investigating general properties of ratio-based loss functions like continuity, Lipschitz-continuity, convexity, and differentiability, because these properties play a central role in most machine learning algorithms. Therefore, we do not focus on some specific machine learning algorithm to derive universal consistency, learning rates, or stability results. Instead, we want to enable future research in this direction.


Persistence-based topological optimization: a survey

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Computational topology provides a tool, persistent homology, to extract quantitative descriptors from structured objects (images, graphs, point clouds, etc). These descriptors can then be involved in optimization problems, typically as a way to incorporate topological priors or to regularize machine learning models. This is usually achieved by minimizing adequate, topologically-informed losses based on these descriptors, which, in turn, naturally raises theoretical and practical questions about the possibility of optimizing such loss functions using gradient-based algorithms. This has been an active research field in the topological data analysis community over the last decade, and various techniques have been developed to enable optimization of persistence-based loss functions with gradient descent schemes. This survey presents the current state of this field, covering its theoretical foundations, the algorithmic aspects, and showcasing practical uses in several applications. It includes a detailed introduction to persistence theory and, as such, aims at being accessible to mathematicians and data scientists newcomers to the field. It is accompanied by an open-source library which implements the different approaches covered in this survey, providing a convenient playground for researchers to get familiar with the field.


Uncertainty Quantification Via the Posterior Predictive Variance

arXiv.org Machine Learning

Abstract: We use the law of total variance to generate multiple expansions for the posterior predictive variance. These expansions are sums of terms involving conditional expectations and conditional variances and provide a quantification of the sources of predictive uncertainty. Since the posterior predictive variance is fixed given the model, it represents a constant quantity that is conserved over these expansions. The terms in the expansions can be assessed in absolute or relative sense to understand the main contributors to the length of prediction intervals. We quantify the term-wise uncertainty across expansions varying in the number of terms and the order of conditionates. In particular, given that a specific term in one expansion is small or zero, we identify the other terms in other expansions that must also be small or zero. We illustrate this approach to predictive model assessment in several well-known models. The Setting and Intuition Everyone uses prediction intervals (PI's) but few examine their structure or more precisely how they should be interpreted in the context of a model with multiple components. Often PI's seem overconfident (too narrow) or useless (too wide). Both frequentist and Bayesian practitioners routinely report PI's.



A Proof of Proposition 2.5

Neural Information Processing Systems

Proposition 2.5 is a direct consequence of the following lemma (remember that Lemma A.1 (Smooth functions conserved through a given flow.) . Assume that @h () ()=0 for all 2 . Let us first show the direct inclusion. Now let us show the converse inclusion. We recall (cf Example 2.10 and Example 2.11) that linear and Assumption 2.9, which we recall reads as: Theorem 2.14, let us show that (9) holds for standard ML losses.