The Conditional Entropy Bottleneck

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05379v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:46:38 GMT
• Title: The Conditional Entropy Bottleneck
• Authors: Ian Fischer
• Abstract summary: We characterize failures of robust generalization as failures of accuracy or related metrics on a held-out set. We propose the Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) criterion for evaluating the quality of a model. In order to train models that perform well with respect to the MNI criterion, we present a new objective function, the Conditional Entropy Bottleneck (CEB) We experimentally test our hypothesis by comparing the performance of CEB models with deterministic models and Variational Information Bottleneck (VIB) models on a variety of different datasets.
• Score: 8.797368310561058
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Much of the field of Machine Learning exhibits a prominent set of failure modes, including vulnerability to adversarial examples, poor out-of-distribution (OoD) detection, miscalibration, and willingness to memorize random labelings of datasets. We characterize these as failures of robust generalization, which extends the traditional measure of generalization as accuracy or related metrics on a held-out set. We hypothesize that these failures to robustly generalize are due to the learning systems retaining too much information about the training data. To test this hypothesis, we propose the Minimum Necessary Information (MNI) criterion for evaluating the quality of a model. In order to train models that perform well with respect to the MNI criterion, we present a new objective function, the Conditional Entropy Bottleneck (CEB), which is closely related to the Information Bottleneck (IB). We experimentally test our hypothesis by comparing the performance of CEB models with deterministic models and Variational Information Bottleneck (VIB) models on a variety of different datasets and robustness challenges. We find strong empirical evidence supporting our hypothesis that MNI models improve on these problems of robust generalization.

Related papers

• MITA: Bridging the Gap between Model and Data for Test-time Adaptation [68.62509948690698]
  Test-Time Adaptation (TTA) has emerged as a promising paradigm for enhancing the generalizability of models. We propose Meet-In-The-Middle based MITA, which introduces energy-based optimization to encourage mutual adaptation of the model and data from opposing directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T07:02:33Z)
• Is Difficulty Calibration All We Need? Towards More Practical Membership Inference Attacks [16.064233621959538]
  We propose a query-efficient and computation-efficient MIA that directly textbfRe-levertextbfAges the original membershitextbfP scores to mtextbfItigate the errors in textbfDifficulty calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-31T11:59:42Z)
• Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
  We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios. We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples. Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z)
• Quantifying Distribution Shifts and Uncertainties for Enhanced Model Robustness in Machine Learning Applications [0.0]
  This study explores model adaptation and generalization by utilizing synthetic data. We employ quantitative measures such as Kullback-Leibler divergence, Jensen-Shannon distance, and Mahalanobis distance to assess data similarity. Our findings suggest that utilizing statistical measures, such as the Mahalanobis distance, to determine whether model predictions fall within the low-error "interpolation regime" or the high-error "extrapolation regime" provides a complementary method for assessing distribution shift and model uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T10:05:31Z)
• A PAC-Bayesian Perspective on the Interpolating Information Criterion [54.548058449535155]
  We show how a PAC-Bayes bound is obtained for a general class of models, characterizing factors which influence performance in the interpolating regime. We quantify how the test error for overparameterized models achieving effectively zero training error depends on the quality of the implicit regularization imposed by e.g. the combination of model, parameter-initialization scheme.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T01:48:08Z)
• A Guide for Practical Use of ADMG Causal Data Augmentation [0.0]
  Causal data augmentation strategies have been pointed out as a solution to handle these challenges. This paper experimentally analyzed the ADMG causal augmentation method considering different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-03T09:31:13Z)
• TsmoBN: Interventional Generalization for Unseen Clients in Federated Learning [23.519212374186232]
  We form a training structural causal model (SCM) to explain the challenges of model generalization in a distributed learning paradigm. We present a simple yet effective method using test-specific and momentum tracked batch normalization (TsmoBN) to generalize FL models to testing clients.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T13:46:37Z)
• A non-asymptotic penalization criterion for model selection in mixture of experts models [1.491109220586182]
  We consider the Gaussian-gated localized MoE (GLoME) regression model for modeling heterogeneous data. This model poses challenging questions with respect to the statistical estimation and model selection problems. We study the problem of estimating the number of components of the GLoME model, in a penalized maximum likelihood estimation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-06T16:24:55Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)
• Accounting for Unobserved Confounding in Domain Generalization [107.0464488046289]
  This paper investigates the problem of learning robust, generalizable prediction models from a combination of datasets. Part of the challenge of learning robust models lies in the influence of unobserved confounders. We demonstrate the empirical performance of our approach on healthcare data from different modalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-21T08:18:06Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.