Ensemble learning is widely used in applications to make predictions in complex decision problems---for example, averaging models fitted to a sequence of samples bootstrapped from the available training data. While such methods offer more accurate, stable, and robust predictions and model estimates, much less is known about how to perform valid, assumption-lean inference on the output of these types of procedures. In this paper, we propose the jackknife+-after-bootstrap (J+aB), a procedure for constructing a predictive interval, which uses only the available bootstrapped samples and their corresponding fitted models, and is therefore free in terms of the cost of model fitting. The J+aB offers a predictive coverage guarantee that holds with no assumptions on the distribution of the data, the nature of the fitted model, or the way in which the ensemble of models are aggregated---at worst, the failure rate of the predictive interval is inflated by a factor of 2. Our numerical experiments verify the coverage and accuracy of the resulting predictive intervals on real data.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

The deployment of autonomous navigation systems on ships necessitates accurate motion prediction models tailored to individual vessels. Traditional physics-based models, while grounded in hydrodynamic principles, often fail to account for ship-specific behaviors under real-world conditions. Conversely, purely data-driven models offer specificity but lack interpretability and robustness in edge cases. This study proposes a data-driven physics-based model that integrates physics-based equations with data-driven parameter optimization, leveraging the strengths of both approaches to ensure interpretability and adaptability. The model incorporates physics-based components such as 3-DoF dynamics, rudder, and propeller forces, while parameters such as resistance curve and rudder coefficients are optimized using synthetic data. By embedding domain knowledge into the parameter optimization process, the fitted model maintains physical consistency. Validation of the approach is realized with two container ships by comparing, both qualitatively and quantitatively, predictions against ground-truth trajectories. The results demonstrate significant improvements, in predictive accuracy and reliability, of the data-driven physics-based models over baseline physics-based models tuned with traditional marine engineering practices. The fitted models capture ship-specific behaviors in diverse conditions with their predictions being, 51.6% (ship A) and 57.8% (ship B) more accurate, 72.36% (ship A) and 89.67% (ship B) more consistent.

Plotting the residuals is a recommended procedure to diagnose deviations from linear model assumptions, such as non-linearity, heteroscedasticity, and non-normality. The presence of structure in residual plots can be tested using the lineup protocol to do visual inference. There are a variety of conventional residual tests, but the lineup protocol, used as a statistical test, performs better for diagnostic purposes because it is less sensitive and applies more broadly to different types of departures. However, the lineup protocol relies on human judgment which limits its scalability. This work presents a solution by providing a computer vision model to automate the assessment of residual plots. It is trained to predict a distance measure that quantifies the disparity between the residual distribution of a fitted classical normal linear regression model and the reference distribution, based on Kullback-Leibler divergence. From extensive simulation studies, the computer vision model exhibits lower sensitivity than conventional tests but higher sensitivity than human visual tests. It is slightly less effective on non-linearity patterns. Several examples from classical papers and contemporary data illustrate the new procedures, highlighting its usefulness in automating the diagnostic process and supplementing existing methods.

Ensemble learning is widely used in applications to make predictions in complex decision problems---for example, averaging models fitted to a sequence of samples bootstrapped from the available training data. While such methods offer more accurate, stable, and robust predictions and model estimates, much less is known about how to perform valid, assumption-lean inference on the output of these types of procedures. In this paper, we propose the jackknife -after-bootstrap (J aB), a procedure for constructing a predictive interval, which uses only the available bootstrapped samples and their corresponding fitted models, and is therefore "free" in terms of the cost of model fitting. The J aB offers a predictive coverage guarantee that holds with no assumptions on the distribution of the data, the nature of the fitted model, or the way in which the ensemble of models are aggregated---at worst, the failure rate of the predictive interval is inflated by a factor of 2. Our numerical experiments verify the coverage and accuracy of the resulting predictive intervals on real data.

The Random Forest (RF) algorithm can be applied to a broad spectrum of problems, including time series prediction. However, neither the classical IID (Independent and Identically distributed) bootstrap nor block bootstrapping strategies (as implemented in rangerts) completely account for the nature of the Data Generating Process (DGP) while resampling the observations. We propose the combination of RF with a residual bootstrapping technique where we replace the IID bootstrap with the AR-Sieve Bootstrap (ARSB), which assumes the DGP to be an autoregressive process. To assess the new model's predictive performance, we conduct a simulation study using synthetic data generated from different types of DGPs. It turns out that ARSB provides more variation amongst the trees in the forest. Moreover, RF with ARSB shows greater accuracy compared to RF with other bootstrap strategies. However, these improvements are achieved at some efficiency costs.

The Gaussian Process (GP) is a highly flexible non-linear regression approach that provides a principled approach to handling our uncertainty over predicted (counterfactual) values. It does so by computing a posterior distribution over predicted point as a function of a chosen model space and the observed data, in contrast to conventional approaches that effectively compute uncertainty estimates conditionally on placing full faith in a fitted model. This is especially valuable under conditions of extrapolation or weak overlap, where model dependency poses a severe threat. We first offer an accessible explanation of GPs, and provide an implementation suitable to social science inference problems. In doing so we reduce the number of user-chosen hyperparameters from three to zero. We then illustrate the settings in which GPs can be most valuable: those where conventional approaches have poor properties due to model-dependency/extrapolation in data-sparse regions. Specifically, we apply it to (i) comparisons in which treated and control groups have poor covariate overlap; (ii) interrupted time-series designs, where models are fitted prior to an event by extrapolated after it; and (iii) regression discontinuity, which depends on model estimates taken at or just beyond the edge of their supporting data.

We propose an exploratory approach to statistical model criticism using maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) two sample tests. Typical approaches to model criticism require a practitioner to select a statistic by which to measure discrepancies between data and a statistical model. MMD two sample tests are instead constructed as an analytic maximisation over a large space of possible statistics and therefore automatically select the statistic which most shows any discrepancy. We demonstrate on synthetic data that the selected statistic, called the witness function, can be used to identify where a statistical model most misrepresents the data it was trained on. We then apply the procedure to real data where the models being assessed are restricted Boltzmann machines, deep belief networks and Gaussian process regression and demonstrate the ways in which these models fail to capture the properties of the data they are trained on.

Algorithm evaluation and comparison are fundamental questions in machine learning and statistics -- how well does an algorithm perform at a given modeling task, and which algorithm performs best? Many methods have been developed to assess algorithm performance, often based around cross-validation type strategies, retraining the algorithm of interest on different subsets of the data and assessing its performance on the held-out data points. Despite the broad use of such procedures, the theoretical properties of these methods are not yet fully understood. In this work, we explore some fundamental limits for answering these questions with limited amounts of data. In particular, we make a distinction between two questions: how good is an algorithm $A$ at the problem of learning from a training set of size $n$, versus, how good is a particular fitted model produced by running $A$ on a particular training data set of size $n$? Our main results prove that, for any test that treats the algorithm $A$ as a ``black box'' (i.e., we can only study the behavior of $A$ empirically), there is a fundamental limit on our ability to carry out inference on the performance of $A$, unless the number of available data points $N$ is many times larger than the sample size $n$ of interest. (On the other hand, evaluating the performance of a particular fitted model is easy as long as a holdout data set is available -- that is, as long as $N-n$ is not too small.) We also ask whether an assumption of algorithmic stability might be sufficient to circumvent this hardness result. Surprisingly, we find that this is not the case: the same hardness result still holds for the problem of evaluating the performance of $A$, aside from a high-stability regime where fitted models are essentially nonrandom. Finally, we also establish similar hardness results for the problem of comparing multiple algorithms.