SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2104.07245

Towards Handling Uncertainty-at-Source in AI -- A Review and Next Steps for Interval Regression

Abstract

Most of statistics and AI draw insights through modelling discord or variance between sources of information (i.e., inter-source uncertainty). Increasingly, however, research is focusing upon uncertainty arising at the level of individual measurements (i.e., within- or intra-source), such as for a given sensor output or human response. Here, adopting intervals rather than numbers as the fundamental data-type provides an efficient, powerful, yet challenging way forward -- offering systematic capture of uncertainty-at-source, increasing informational capacity, and ultimately potential for insight. Following recent progress in the capture of interval-valued data, including from human participants, conducting machine learning directly upon intervals is a crucial next step. This paper focuses on linear regression for interval-valued data as a recent growth area, providing an essential foundation for broader use of intervals in AI. We conduct an in-depth analysis of state-of-the-art methods, elucidating their behaviour, advantages, and pitfalls when applied to datasets with different properties. Specific emphasis is given to the challenge of preserving mathematical coherence -- i.e., ensuring that models maintain fundamental mathematical properties of intervals throughout -- and the paper puts forward extensions to an existing approach to guarantee this. Carefully designed experiments, using both synthetic and real-world data, are conducted -- with findings presented alongside novel visualizations for interval-valued regression outputs, designed to maximise model interpretability. Finally, the paper makes recommendations concerning method suitability for data sets with specific properties and highlights remaining challenges and important next steps for developing AI with the capacity to handle uncertainty-at-source.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shaily Kabir, Christian Wagner, Zack Ellerby. 2021-04-15. Towards Handling Uncertainty-at-Source in AI -- A Review and Next Steps for Interval Regression. https://doi.org/10.1109/tai.2023.3234930

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG