We further highlight MoNE's adaptability by showcasing its ability to maintain strong performance across different

Model selection in non-linear models often prioritizes performance metrics over statistical tests, limiting the ability to account for sampling variability. We propose the use of a statistical test to assess the equality of variances in forecasting errors. The test builds upon the classic Morgan-Pitman approach, incorporating enhancements to ensure robustness against data with heavy-tailed distributions or outliers with high variance, plus a strategy to make residuals from machine learning models statistically independent. Through a series of simulations and real-world data applications, we demonstrate the test's effectiveness and practical utility, offering a reliable tool for model evaluation and selection in diverse contexts.

A core motivation of science is to evaluate which scientific model best explains observed data. Bayesian model comparison provides a principled statistical approach to comparing scientific models and has found widespread application within cosmology and astrophysics. Calculating the Bayesian evidence is computationally challenging, especially as we continue to explore increasingly more complex models. The Savage-Dickey density ratio (SDDR) provides a method to calculate the Bayes factor (evidence ratio) between two nested models using only posterior samples from the super model. The SDDR requires the calculation of a normalised marginal distribution over the extra parameters of the super model, which has typically been performed using classical density estimators, such as histograms. Classical density estimators, however, can struggle to scale to high-dimensional settings. We introduce a neural SDDR approach using normalizing flows that can scale to settings where the super model contains a large number of extra parameters. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this neural SDDR methodology applied to both toy and realistic cosmological examples. For a field-level inference setting, we show that Bayes factors computed for a Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM) and simulation-based inference (SBI) approach are consistent, providing further validation that SBI extracts as much cosmological information from the field as the BHM approach. The SDDR estimator with normalizing flows is implemented in the open-source harmonic Python package.

Recent advances in visual generation have made significant strides in producing content of exceptional quality. However, most methods suffer from a fundamental problem - a bottleneck of inference computational efficiency. Most of these algorithms involve multiple passes over a transformer model to generate tokens or denoise inputs. However, the model size is kept consistent throughout all iterations, which makes it computationally expensive. In this work, we aim to address this issue primarily through two key ideas - (a) not all parts of the generation process need equal compute, and we design a decode time model scaling schedule to utilize compute effectively, and (b) we can cache and reuse some of the computation. Combining these two ideas leads to using smaller models to process more tokens while large models process fewer tokens. These different-sized models do not increase the parameter size, as they share parameters. We rigorously experiment with ImageNet256$\times$256 , UCF101, and Kinetics600 to showcase the efficacy of the proposed method for image/video generation and frame prediction. Our experiments show that with almost $3\times$ less compute than baseline, our model obtains competitive performance.

The growing AI field faces trust, transparency, fairness, and discrimination challenges. Despite the need for new regulations, there is a mismatch between regulatory science and AI, preventing a consistent framework. A five-layer nested model for AI design and validation aims to address these issues and streamline AI application design and validation, improving fairness, trust, and AI adoption. This model aligns with regulations, addresses AI practitioner's daily challenges, and offers prescriptive guidance for determining appropriate evaluation approaches by identifying unique validity threats. We have three recommendations motivated by this model: authors should distinguish between layers when claiming contributions to clarify the specific areas in which the contribution is made and to avoid confusion, authors should explicitly state upstream assumptions to ensure that the context and limitations of their AI system are clearly understood, AI venues should promote thorough testing and validation of AI systems and their compliance with regulatory requirements.

The visual medium (images and videos) naturally contains a large amount of information redundancy, thereby providing a great opportunity for leveraging efficiency in processing. While Vision Transformer (ViT) based models scale effectively to large data regimes, they fail to capitalize on this inherent redundancy, leading to higher computational costs. Mixture of Experts (MoE) networks demonstrate scalability while maintaining same inference-time costs, but they come with a larger parameter footprint. We present Mixture of Nested Experts (MoNE), which utilizes a nested structure for experts, wherein individual experts fall on an increasing compute-accuracy curve. Given a compute budget, MoNE learns to dynamically choose tokens in a priority order, and thus redundant tokens are processed through cheaper nested experts. Using this framework, we achieve equivalent performance as the baseline models, while reducing inference time compute by over two-fold. We validate our approach on standard image and video datasets - ImageNet-21K, Kinetics400, and Something-Something-v2. We further highlight MoNE$'$s adaptability by showcasing its ability to maintain strong performance across different inference-time compute budgets on videos, using only a single trained model.

In this post, I'll take a look at how you can compare regression models. Comparing regression models is perhaps one of the trickiest tasks to complete in the "comparing models" arena; The reason is that there are literally dozens of statistics you can calculate to compare regression models, including: This list isn't exhaustive–there are many other tools, tests and plots at your disposal. Rather than discuss the statistics in detail, I chose to focus this post on comparing a few of the most popular regression model evaluation techniques and discuss when you might want to use them (or when you might not want to). The techniques listed below tend to be on the "easier to use and understand" end of the spectrum, so if you're new to model comparison it's a good place to start. The first question you should be asking is: How well do I know my data?

We study the nested model averaging method on the solution path for a high-dimensional linear regression problem. In particular, we propose to combine model averaging with regularized estimators (e.g., lasso and SLOPE) on the solution path for high-dimensional linear regression. In simulation studies, we first conduct a systematic investigation on the impact of predictor ordering on the behavior of nested model averaging, then show that nested model averaging with lasso and SLOPE compares favorably with other competing methods, including the infeasible lasso and SLOPE with the tuning parameter optimally selected. A real data analysis on predicting the per capita violent crime in the United States shows an outstanding performance of the nested model averaging with lasso.

In this post, I'll take a look at how you can compare regression models. Comparing regression models is perhaps one of the trickiest tasks to complete in the "comparing models" arena; The reason is that there are literally dozens of statistics you can calculate to compare regression models, including: This list isn't exhaustive--there are many other tools, tests and plots at your disposal. Rather than discuss the statistics in detail, I chose to focus this post on comparing a few of the most popular regression model evaluation techniques and discuss when you might want to use them (or when you might not want to). The techniques listed below tend to be on the "easier to use and understand" end of the spectrum, so if you're new to model comparison it's a good place to start. The first question you should be asking is: How well do I know my data?