Towards Error Measures which Influence a Learners Inductive Bias to the Ground Truth

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01567v1
• Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 15:33:58 GMT
• Title: Towards Error Measures which Influence a Learners Inductive Bias to the Ground Truth
• Authors: A. I. Parkes, A. J. Sobey and D. A. Hudson
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates how error measures affect the ability for a regression method to model the ground truth' in scenarios with sparse data. Current error measures are shown to create an unhelpful bias and a new error measure is derived which does not exhibit this behaviour.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence is applied in a range of sectors, and is relied upon for decisions requiring a high level of trust. For regression methods, trust is increased if they approximate the true input-output relationships and perform accurately outside the bounds of the training data. But often performance off-test-set is poor, especially when data is sparse. This is because the conditional average, which in many scenarios is a good approximation of the `ground truth', is only modelled with conventional Minkowski-r error measures when the data set adheres to restrictive assumptions, with many real data sets violating these. To combat this there are several methods that use prior knowledge to approximate the `ground truth'. However, prior knowledge is not always available, and this paper investigates how error measures affect the ability for a regression method to model the `ground truth' in these scenarios. Current error measures are shown to create an unhelpful bias and a new error measure is derived which does not exhibit this behaviour. This is tested on 36 representative data sets with different characteristics, showing that it is more consistent in determining the `ground truth' and in giving improved predictions in regions beyond the range of the training data.

Related papers

• A Causal Information-Flow Framework for Unbiased Learning-to-Rank [52.54102347581931]
  In web search and recommendation systems, user clicks are widely used to train ranking models.<n>We introduce a novel causal learning-based ranking framework that extends Unbiased Learning-to-Rank.<n>Our method consistently reduces measured bias leakage and improves ranking performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T07:19:35Z)
• Hey, That's My Data! Label-Only Dataset Inference in Large Language Models [63.35066172530291]
  CatShift is a label-only dataset-inference framework.<n>It capitalizes on catastrophic forgetting: the tendency of an LLM to overwrite previously learned knowledge when exposed to new data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T13:02:59Z)
• Statistically Testing Training Data for Unwanted Error Patterns using Rule-Oriented Regression [0.5831737970661137]
  We provide a method to test training data for flaws, to establish a trustworthy ground-truth for a subsequent training of machine learning models. Our approach extends the abilities of conventional statistical testing by letting the test-condition'' be any condition to describe a pattern in the data. We provide an open source implementation for demonstration and experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T09:52:36Z)
• Debiasing Machine Learning Models by Using Weakly Supervised Learning [3.3298048942057523]
  We tackle the problem of bias mitigation of algorithmic decisions in a setting where both the output of the algorithm and the sensitive variable are continuous. Typical examples are unfair decisions made with respect to the age or the financial status. Our bias mitigation strategy is a weakly supervised learning method which requires that a small portion of the data can be measured in a fair manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T18:11:32Z)
• Random features models: a way to study the success of naive imputation [0.0]
  Constant (naive) imputation is still widely used in practice as this is a first easy-to-use technique to deal with missing data. Recent works suggest that this bias is low in the context of high-dimensional linear predictors. This paper confirms the intuition that the bias is negligible and that surprisingly naive imputation also remains relevant in very low dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T09:37:06Z)
• Simultaneous Improvement of ML Model Fairness and Performance by Identifying Bias in Data [1.76179873429447]
  We propose a data preprocessing technique that can detect instances ascribing a specific kind of bias that should be removed from the dataset before training. In particular, we claim that in the problem settings where instances exist with similar feature but different labels caused by variation in protected attributes, an inherent bias gets induced in the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T13:04:07Z)
• Conformal prediction for the design problem [72.14982816083297]
  In many real-world deployments of machine learning, we use a prediction algorithm to choose what data to test next. In such settings, there is a distinct type of distribution shift between the training and test data. We introduce a method to quantify predictive uncertainty in such settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T02:59:12Z)
• Leveraging Unlabeled Data to Predict Out-of-Distribution Performance [63.740181251997306]
  Real-world machine learning deployments are characterized by mismatches between the source (training) and target (test) distributions. In this work, we investigate methods for predicting the target domain accuracy using only labeled source data and unlabeled target data. We propose Average Thresholded Confidence (ATC), a practical method that learns a threshold on the model's confidence, predicting accuracy as the fraction of unlabeled examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-11T23:01:12Z)
• Don't Discard All the Biased Instances: Investigating a Core Assumption in Dataset Bias Mitigation Techniques [19.252319300590656]
  Existing techniques for mitigating dataset bias often leverage a biased model to identify biased instances. The role of these biased instances is then reduced during the training of the main model to enhance its robustness to out-of-distribution data. In this paper, we show that this assumption does not hold in general.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T10:25:46Z)
• Imputation-Free Learning from Incomplete Observations [73.15386629370111]
  We introduce the importance of guided gradient descent (IGSGD) method to train inference from inputs containing missing values without imputation. We employ reinforcement learning (RL) to adjust the gradients used to train the models via back-propagation. Our imputation-free predictions outperform the traditional two-step imputation-based predictions using state-of-the-art imputation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:44:39Z)
• Scalable Marginal Likelihood Estimation for Model Selection in Deep Learning [78.83598532168256]
  Marginal-likelihood based model-selection is rarely used in deep learning due to estimation difficulties. Our work shows that marginal likelihoods can improve generalization and be useful when validation data is unavailable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-11T09:50:24Z)
• Cross-validation: what does it estimate and how well does it do it? [2.049702429898688]
  Cross-validation is a widely-used technique to estimate prediction error, but its behavior is complex and not fully understood. We prove that this is not the case for the linear model fit by ordinary least squares; rather it estimates the average prediction error of models fit on other unseen training sets drawn from the same population.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:58:54Z)
• SLOE: A Faster Method for Statistical Inference in High-Dimensional Logistic Regression [68.66245730450915]
  We develop an improved method for debiasing predictions and estimating frequentist uncertainty for practical datasets. Our main contribution is SLOE, an estimator of the signal strength with convergence guarantees that reduces the computation time of estimation and inference by orders of magnitude.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T17:48:56Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)
• Evaluating Prediction-Time Batch Normalization for Robustness under Covariate Shift [81.74795324629712]
  We call prediction-time batch normalization, which significantly improves model accuracy and calibration under covariate shift. We show that prediction-time batch normalization provides complementary benefits to existing state-of-the-art approaches for improving robustness. The method has mixed results when used alongside pre-training, and does not seem to perform as well under more natural types of dataset shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T05:08:43Z)

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.