We study data-driven decision-making problems in the Bayesian framework, where the expectation in the Bayes risk is replaced by a risk-sensitive entropic risk measure with respect to the posterior distribution. We focus on problems where calculating the posterior distribution is intractable, a typical situation in modern applications with large datasets and complex data generating models. We leverage a dual representation of the entropic risk measure to introduce a novel risk-sensitive variational Bayesian (RSVB) framework for jointly computing a risk-sensitive posterior approximation and the corresponding decision rule.

We propose a robust and reliable evaluation metric for generative models called Topological Precision and Recall (TopP&R, pronounced "topper"), which systematically estimates supports by retaining only topologically and statistically significant features with a certain level of confidence. Existing metrics, such as Inception Score (IS), Frechet Inception Distance (FID), and various Precision and Recall (P&R) variants, rely heavily on support estimates derived from sample features. However, the reliability of these estimates has been overlooked, even though the quality of the evaluation hinges entirely on their accuracy. In this paper, we demonstrate that current methods not only fail to accurately assess sample quality when support estimation is unreliable, but also yield inconsistent results. In contrast, TopP&R reliably evaluates the sample quality and ensures statistical consistency in its results. Our theoretical and experimental findings reveal that TopP&R provides a robust evaluation, accurately capturing the true trend of change in samples, even in the presence of outliers and non-independent and identically distributed (Non-IID) perturbations where other methods result in inaccurate support estimations. To our knowledge, TopP&R is the first evaluation metric specifically focused on the robust estimation of supports, offering statistical consistency under noise conditions.

First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. The paper studies the statistical consistency of plug in classifiers under non decomposable loss functions such as the F statistic which is a popular performance measure in machine learning. The problem studied in this paper is complex because non decomposable measures cannot, by definition, be expressed as an empirical expectation. Therefore, usual concentration inequalities are not applicable in this scenario. The authors present a general analysis for measures that can be expressed as a continuous function of the true positive rate and the true negative rate as well as the class probability.

We study consistency properties of algorithms for non-decomposable performance measures that cannot be expressed as a sum of losses on individual data points, such as the F-measure used in text retrieval and several other performance measures used in class imbalanced settings. While there has been much work on designing algorithms for such performance measures, there is limited understanding of the theoretical properties of these algorithms. Recently, Ye et al. (2012) showed consistency results for two algorithms that optimize the F-measure, but their results apply only to an idealized setting, where precise knowledge of the underlying probability distribution (in the form of the estimate' of the class probability, and provide a general methodology to show consistency of these methods for any non-decomposable measure that can be expressed as a continuous function of true positive rate (TPR) and true negative rate (TNR), and for which the Bayes optimal classifier is the class probability function thresholded suitably. We use this template to derive consistency results for plug-in algorithms for the F-measure and for the geometric mean of TPR and precision; to our knowledge, these are the first such results for these measures. In addition, for continuous distributions, we show consistency of plug-in algorithms for any performance measure that is a continuous and monotonically increasing function of TPR and TNR. Experimental results confirm our theoretical findings.

The particle filter (PF) and the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) are widely used for approximate inference in state-space models. From a Bayesian perspective, these algorithms represent the prior by an ensemble of particles and update it to the posterior with new observations over time. However, the PF often suffers from weight degeneracy in high-dimensional settings, whereas the EnKF relies on linear Gaussian assumptions that can introduce significant approximation errors. In this paper, we propose the Adversarial Transform Particle Filter (ATPF), a novel filtering framework that combines the strengths of the PF and the EnKF through adversarial learning. Specifically, importance sampling is used to ensure statistical consistency as in the PF, while adversarially learned transformations, such as neural networks, allow accurate posterior matching for nonlinear and non-Gaussian systems. In addition, we incorporate kernel methods to ease optimization and leverage regularization techniques based on optimal transport for better statistical properties and numerical stability. We provide theoretical guarantees, including generalization bounds for both the analysis and forecast steps of ATPF. Extensive experiments across various nonlinear and non-Gaussian scenarios demonstrate the effectiveness and practical advantages of our method.

We study data-driven decision-making problems in the Bayesian framework, where the expectation in the Bayes risk is replaced by a risk-sensitive entropic risk measure with respect to the posterior distribution. We focus on problems where calculating the posterior distribution is intractable, a typical situation in modern applications with large datasets and complex data generating models. We leverage a dual representation of the entropic risk measure to introduce a novel risk-sensitive variational Bayesian (RSVB) framework for jointly computing a risk-sensitive posterior approximation and the corresponding decision rule. We also study the impact of these computational approximations on the predictive performance of the inferred decision rules. We compute the convergence rates of the RSVB approximate posterior and the corresponding optimal value.

We propose a robust and reliable evaluation metric for generative models called Topological Precision and Recall (TopP&R, pronounced "topper"), which systematically estimates supports by retaining only topologically and statistically significant features with a certain level of confidence. Existing metrics, such as Inception Score (IS), Frechet Inception Distance (FID), and various Precision and Recall (P&R) variants, rely heavily on support estimates derived from sample features. However, the reliability of these estimates has been overlooked, even though the quality of the evaluation hinges entirely on their accuracy. In this paper, we demonstrate that current methods not only fail to accurately assess sample quality when support estimation is unreliable, but also yield inconsistent results. In contrast, TopP&R reliably evaluates the sample quality and ensures statistical consistency in its results. Our theoretical and experimental findings reveal that TopP&R provides a robust evaluation, accurately capturing the true trend of change in samples, even in the presence of outliers and non-independent and identically distributed (Non-IID) perturbations where other methods result in inaccurate support estimations.

Neural networks have shown remarkable success, especially in overparameterized or "large" models. Despite increasing empirical evidence and intuitive understanding, a formal mathematical justification for the behavior of such models, particularly regarding overfitting, remains incomplete. In this paper, we propose a general regularization framework to study the Mean Integrated Squared Error (MISE) of neural networks. This framework includes many commonly used neural networks and penalties, such as ReLu and Sigmoid activations and $L^1$, $L^2$ penalties. Based on our frameworks, we find the MISE curve has two possible shapes, namely the shape of double descents and monotone decreasing. The latter phenomenon is new in literature and the causes of these two phenomena are also studied in theory. These studies challenge conventional statistical modeling frameworks and broadens recent findings on the double descent phenomenon in neural networks.

This paper is concerned with the statistical consistency of ranking methods. Recently, it was proven that many commonly used pairwise ranking methods are inconsistent with the weighted pairwise disagreement loss (WPDL), which can be viewed as the true loss of ranking, even in a low-noise setting. This result is interesting but also surprising, given that the pairwise ranking methods have been shown very effective in practice. In this paper, we argue that the aforementioned result might not be conclusive, depending on what kind of assumptions are used. We give a new assumption that the labels of objects to rank lie in a rank-differentiable probability space (RDPS), and prove that the pairwise ranking methods become consistent with WPDL under this assumption. What is especially inspiring is that RDPS is actually not stronger than but similar to the low-noise setting. Our studies provide theoretical justifications of some empirical findings on pairwise ranking methods that are unexplained before, which bridge the gap between theory and applications.

This paper is concerned with the consistency analysis on listwise ranking methods. Among various ranking methods, the listwise methods have competitive performances on benchmark datasets and are regarded as one of the state-of-the-art approaches. Most listwise ranking methods manage to optimize ranking on the whole list (permutation) of objects, however, in practical applications such as information retrieval, correct ranking at the top k positions is much more important. This paper aims to analyze whether existing listwise ranking methods are statistically consistent in the top-k setting. For this purpose, we define a top-k ranking framework, where the true loss (and thus the risks) are defined on the basis of top-k subgroup of permutations.