arXiv subjects

Ulrike von Luxburg

Publications and source records attributed to Ulrike von Luxburg.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2022

Clustering with Tangles: Algorithmic Framework and Theoretical Guarantees

Originally, tangles were invented as an abstract tool in mathematical graph theory to prove the famous graph minor theorem. In this paper, we showcase the practical potential of tangles in machine learning applications. Given a collection of cuts of any dataset, tangles aggregate these cuts to point in the direction of a dense structure. As a result, a cluster is softly characterized by a set of consistent pointers. This highly flexible approach can solve clustering problems in various setups, ranging from questionnaires over community detection in graphs to clustering points in metric spaces. The output of our proposed framework is hierarchical and induces the notion of a soft dendrogram, which can help explore the cluster structure of a dataset. The computational complexity of aggregating the cuts is linear in the number of data points. Thus the bottleneck of the tangle approach is to generate the cuts, for which simple and fast algorithms form a sufficient basis. In our paper we construct the algorithmic framework for clustering with tangles, prove theoretical guarantees in various settings, and provide extensive simulations and use cases. Python code is available on github.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

A Consistent Estimator for Confounding Strength

Regression on observational data can fail to capture a causal relationship in the presence of unobserved confounding. Confounding strength measures this mismatch, but estimating it requires itself additional assumptions. A common assumption is the independence of causal mechanisms, which relies on concentration phenomena in high dimensions. While high dimensions enable the estimation of confounding strength, they also necessitate adapted estimators. In this paper, we derive the asymptotic behavior of the confounding strength estimator by Janzing and Schölkopf (2018) and show that it is generally not consistent. We then use tools from random matrix theory to derive an adapted, consistent estimator.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

Looking Deeper into Tabular LIME

In this paper, we present a thorough theoretical analysis of the default implementation of LIME in the case of tabular data. We prove that in the large sample limit, the interpretable coefficients provided by Tabular LIME can be computed in an explicit way as a function of the algorithm parameters and some expectation computations related to the black-box model. When the function to explain has some nice algebraic structure (linear, multiplicative, or sparsely depending on a subset of the coordinates), our analysis provides interesting insights into the explanations provided by LIME. These can be applied to a range of machine learning models including Gaussian kernels or CART random forests. As an example, for linear functions we show that LIME has the desirable property to provide explanations that are proportional to the coefficients of the function to explain and to ignore coordinates that are not used by the function to explain. For partition-based regressors, on the other side, we show that LIME produces undesired artifacts that may provide misleading explanations.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts

Existing and planned legislation stipulates various obligations to provide information about machine learning algorithms and their functioning, often interpreted as obligations to "explain". Many researchers suggest using post-hoc explanation algorithms for this purpose. In this paper, we combine legal, philosophical and technical arguments to show that post-hoc explanation algorithms are unsuitable to achieve the law's objectives. Indeed, most situations where explanations are requested are adversarial, meaning that the explanation provider and receiver have opposing interests and incentives, so that the provider might manipulate the explanation for her own ends. We show that this fundamental conflict cannot be resolved because of the high degree of ambiguity of post-hoc explanations in realistic application scenarios. As a consequence, post-hoc explanation algorithms are unsuitable to achieve the transparency objectives inherent to the legal norms. Instead, there is a need to more explicitly discuss the objectives underlying "explainability" obligations as these can often be better achieved through other mechanisms. There is an urgent need for a more open and honest discussion regarding the potential and limitations of post-hoc explanations in adversarial contexts, in particular in light of the current negotiations of the European Union's draft Artificial Intelligence Act.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

A Bandit Model for Human-Machine Decision Making with Private Information and Opacity

Applications of machine learning inform human decision makers in a broad range of tasks. The resulting problem is usually formulated in terms of a single decision maker. We argue that it should rather be described as a two-player learning problem where one player is the machine and the other the human. While both players try to optimize the final decision, the setup is often characterized by (1) the presence of private information and (2) opacity, that is imperfect understanding between the decision makers. We prove that both properties can complicate decision making considerably. A lower bound quantifies the worst-case hardness of optimally advising a decision maker who is opaque or has access to private information. An upper bound shows that a simple coordination strategy is nearly minimax optimal. More efficient learning is possible under certain assumptions on the problem, for example that both players learn to take actions independently. Such assumptions are implicit in existing literature, for example in medical applications of machine learning, but have not been described or justified theoretically.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Discovering Inductive Bias with Gibbs Priors: A Diagnostic Tool for Approximate Bayesian Inference

Full Bayesian posteriors are rarely analytically tractable, which is why real-world Bayesian inference heavily relies on approximate techniques. Approximations generally differ from the true posterior and require diagnostic tools to assess whether the inference can still be trusted. We investigate a new approach to diagnosing approximate inference: the approximation mismatch is attributed to a change in the inductive bias by treating the approximations as exact and reverse-engineering the corresponding prior. We show that the problem is more complicated than it appears to be at first glance, because the solution generally depends on the observation. By reframing the problem in terms of incompatible conditional distributions we arrive at a natural solution: the Gibbs prior. The resulting diagnostic is based on pseudo-Gibbs sampling, which is widely applicable and easy to implement. We illustrate how the Gibbs prior can be used to discover the inductive bias in a controlled Gaussian setting and for a variety of Bayesian models and approximations.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

Interpolation and Regularization for Causal Learning

We study the problem of learning causal models from observational data through the lens of interpolation and its counterpart -- regularization. A large volume of recent theoretical, as well as empirical work, suggests that, in highly complex model classes, interpolating estimators can have good statistical generalization properties and can even be optimal for statistical learning. Motivated by an analogy between statistical and causal learning recently highlighted by Janzing (2019), we investigate whether interpolating estimators can also learn good causal models. To this end, we consider a simple linearly confounded model and derive precise asymptotics for the *causal risk* of the min-norm interpolator and ridge-regularized regressors in the high-dimensional regime. Under the principle of independent causal mechanisms, a standard assumption in causal learning, we find that interpolators cannot be optimal and causal learning requires stronger regularization than statistical learning. This resolves a recent conjecture in Janzing (2019). Beyond this assumption, we find a larger range of behavior that can be precisely characterized with a new measure of *confounding strength*. If the confounding strength is negative, causal learning requires weaker regularization than statistical learning, interpolators can be optimal, and the optimal regularization can even be negative. If the confounding strength is large, the optimal regularization is infinite, and learning from observational data is actively harmful.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2021

Insights into Ordinal Embedding Algorithms: A Systematic Evaluation

The objective of ordinal embedding is to find a Euclidean representation of a set of abstract items, using only answers to triplet comparisons of the form "Is item $i$ closer to the item $j$ or item $k$?". In recent years, numerous algorithms have been proposed to solve this problem. However, there does not exist a fair and thorough assessment of these embedding methods and therefore several key questions remain unanswered: Which algorithms perform better when the embedding dimension is constrained or few triplet comparisons are available? Which ones scale better with increasing sample size or dimension? In our paper, we address these questions and provide the first comprehensive and systematic empirical evaluation of existing algorithms as well as a new neural network approach. We find that simple, relatively unknown, non-convex methods consistently outperform all other algorithms, including elaborate approaches based on neural networks or landmark approaches. This finding can be explained by our insight that many of the non-convex optimization approaches do not suffer from local optima. Our comprehensive assessment is enabled by our unified library of popular embedding algorithms that leverages GPU resources and allows for fast and accurate embeddings of millions of data points.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Recovery Guarantees for Kernel-based Clustering under Non-parametric Mixture Models

Despite the ubiquity of kernel-based clustering, surprisingly few statistical guarantees exist beyond settings that consider strong structural assumptions on the data generation process. In this work, we take a step towards bridging this gap by studying the statistical performance of kernel-based clustering algorithms under non-parametric mixture models. We provide necessary and sufficient separability conditions under which these algorithms can consistently recover the underlying true clustering. Our analysis provides guarantees for kernel clustering approaches without structural assumptions on the form of the component distributions. Additionally, we establish a key equivalence between kernel-based data-clustering and kernel density-based clustering. This enables us to provide consistency guarantees for kernel-based estimators of non-parametric mixture models. Along with theoretical implications, this connection could have practical implications, including in the systematic choice of the bandwidth of the Gaussian kernel in the context of clustering.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Specialists Outperform Generalists in Ensemble Classification

Consider an ensemble of $k$ individual classifiers whose accuracies are known. Upon receiving a test point, each of the classifiers outputs a predicted label and a confidence in its prediction for this particular test point. In this paper, we address the question of whether we can determine the accuracy of the ensemble. Surprisingly, even when classifiers are combined in the statistically optimal way in this setting, the accuracy of the resulting ensemble classifier cannot be computed from the accuracies of the individual classifiers-as would be the case in the standard setting of confidence weighted majority voting. We prove tight upper and lower bounds on the ensemble accuracy. We explicitly construct the individual classifiers that attain the upper and lower bounds: specialists and generalists. Our theoretical results have very practical consequences: (1) If we use ensemble methods and have the choice to construct our individual (independent) classifiers from scratch, then we should aim for specialist classifiers rather than generalists. (2) Our bounds can be used to determine how many classifiers are at least required to achieve a desired ensemble accuracy. Finally, we improve our bounds by considering the mutual information between the true label and the individual classifier's output.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Advancing Research on Unconscious Priming: When can Scientists Claim an Indirect Task Advantage?

Current literature holds that many cognitive functions can be performed outside consciousness. Evidence for this view comes from unconscious priming. In a typical experiment, visual stimuli are masked, such that participants are close to chance when directly asked to which of two categories the stimuli belong. This close-to-zero sensitivity is seen as evidence that participants cannot consciously report the category of the masked stimuli. Nevertheless, the category of the masked stimuli can indirectly affect responses to other stimuli (e.g., reaction times or brain activity). Priming is therefore seen as evidence that there is still some (albeit unconscious) sensitivity to the stimulus categories, thereby indicating processing outside consciousness. Although this "standard reasoning of unconscious priming" has been used in many studies, we show that it is flawed: Sensitivities are not calculated appropriately, hereby creating the wrong impression that priming indicated better sensitivity than the close-to-zero sensitivity of the direct discrimination. We describe the appropriate way to determine sensitivities, replicate the behavioral part of a landmark study, develop a method to estimate sensitivities for published studies from reported summary statistics, and use this method to reanalyze 15 highly influential studies. Results show that the interpretations of many studies need to be changed and that a community effort to reassess the vast literature on unconscious priming is needed. This process will allow scientists to learn more about the true boundary conditions of unconscious priming, thereby advancing the scientific understanding of consciousness.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

Group Decisions based on Confidence Weighted Majority Voting

Background: It has repeatedly been reported that when making decisions under uncertainty, groups outperform individuals. In a lab setting, real groups are often replaced by simulated groups: Instead of performing an actual group discussion, individual responses are aggregated by a numerical computation. While studies typically use unweighted majority voting (MV) for this aggregation, the theoretically optimal method is confidence weighted majority voting (CWMV) -- if confidence ratings for the individual responses are available. However, it is not entirely clear how well the theoretically derived CWMV method predicts real group decisions and confidences. Therefore, we compared simulated group responses using CWMV and MV to real group responses. Results: Simulated group decisions based on CWMV matched the accuracy of real group decisions very well, while simulated group decisions based on MV showed lower accuracy. Also, CWMV well predicted the confidence that groups put into their group decisions. Yet, individuals and real groups showed a bias towards under-confidence while CWMV does not. Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of taking into account individual confidences when investigating group decisions: We found that real groups can aggregate individual confidences such that they match the optimal aggregation given by CWMV. This implies that research using simulated group decisions should use CWMV and not MV.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2020

Explaining the Explainer: A First Theoretical Analysis of LIME

Machine learning is used more and more often for sensitive applications, sometimes replacing humans in critical decision-making processes. As such, interpretability of these algorithms is a pressing need. One popular algorithm to provide interpretability is LIME (Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanation). In this paper, we provide the first theoretical analysis of LIME. We derive closed-form expressions for the coefficients of the interpretable model when the function to explain is linear. The good news is that these coefficients are proportional to the gradient of the function to explain: LIME indeed discovers meaningful features. However, our analysis also reveals that poor choices of parameters can lead LIME to miss important features.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Estimation of perceptual scales using ordinal embedding

In this paper, we address the problem of measuring and analysing sensation, the subjective magnitude of one's experience. We do this in the context of the method of triads: the sensation of the stimulus is evaluated via relative judgments of the form: "Is stimulus S_i more similar to stimulus S_j or to stimulus S_k?". We propose to use ordinal embedding methods from machine learning to estimate the scaling function from the relative judgments. We review two relevant and well-known methods in psychophysics which are partially applicable in our setting: non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMDS) and the method of maximum likelihood difference scaling (MLDS). We perform an extensive set of simulations, considering various scaling functions, to demonstrate the performance of the ordinal embedding methods. We show that in contrast to existing approaches our ordinal embedding approach allows, first, to obtain reasonable scaling function from comparatively few relative judgments, second, the estimation of non-monotonous scaling functions, and, third, multi-dimensional perceptual scales. In addition to the simulations, we analyse data from two real psychophysics experiments using ordinal embedding methods. Our results show that in the one-dimensional, monotonically increasing perceptual scale our ordinal embedding approach works as well as MLDS, while in higher dimensions, only our ordinal embedding methods can produce a desirable scaling function. To make our methods widely accessible, we provide an R-implementation and general rules of thumb on how to use ordinal embedding in the context of psychophysics.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Comparison-Based Framework for Psychophysics: Lab versus Crowdsourcing

Traditionally, psychophysical experiments are conducted by repeated measurements on a few well-trained participants under well-controlled conditions, often resulting in, if done properly, high quality data. In recent years, however, crowdsourcing platforms are becoming increasingly popular means of data collection, measuring many participants at the potential cost of obtaining data of worse quality. In this paper we study whether the use of comparison-based (ordinal) data, combined with machine learning algorithms, can boost the reliability of crowdsourcing studies for psychophysics, such that they can achieve performance close to a lab experiment. To this end, we compare three setups: simulations, a psychophysics lab experiment, and the same experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk. All these experiments are conducted in a comparison-based setting where participants have to answer triplet questions of the form "is object x closer to y or to z?". We then use machine learning to solve the triplet prediction problem: given a subset of triplet questions with corresponding answers, we predict the answer to the remaining questions. Considering the limitations and noise on MTurk, we find that the accuracy of triplet prediction is surprisingly close---but not equal---to our lab study.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Two-sample Hypothesis Testing for Inhomogeneous Random Graphs

The study of networks leads to a wide range of high dimensional inference problems. In many practical applications, one needs to draw inference from one or few large sparse networks. The present paper studies hypothesis testing of graphs in this high-dimensional regime, where the goal is to test between two populations of inhomogeneous random graphs defined on the same set of $n$ vertices. The size of each population $m$ is much smaller than $n$, and can even be a constant as small as 1. The critical question in this context is whether the problem is solvable for small $m$. We answer this question from a minimax testing perspective. Let $P,Q$ be the population adjacencies of two sparse inhomogeneous random graph models, and $d$ be a suitably defined distance function. Given a population of $m$ graphs from each model, we derive minimax separation rates for the problem of testing $P=Q$ against $d(P,Q)>ρ$. We observe that if $m$ is small, then the minimax separation is too large for some popular choices of $d$, including total variation distance between corresponding distributions. This implies that some models that are widely separated in $d$ cannot be distinguished for small $m$, and hence, the testing problem is generally not solvable in these cases. We also show that if $m>1$, then the minimax separation is relatively small if $d$ is the Frobenius norm or operator norm distance between $P$ and $Q$. For $m=1$, only the latter distance provides small minimax separation. Thus, for these distances, the problem is solvable for small $m$. We also present near-optimal two-sample tests in both cases, where tests are adaptive with respect to sparsity level of the graphs.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Uncertainty Estimates for Ordinal Embeddings

To investigate objects without a describable notion of distance, one can gather ordinal information by asking triplet comparisons of the form "Is object $x$ closer to $y$ or is $x$ closer to $z$?" In order to learn from such data, the objects are typically embedded in a Euclidean space while satisfying as many triplet comparisons as possible. In this paper, we introduce empirical uncertainty estimates for standard embedding algorithms when few noisy triplets are available, using a bootstrap and a Bayesian approach. In particular, simulations show that these estimates are well calibrated and can serve to select embedding parameters or to quantify uncertainty in scientific applications.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Foundations of Comparison-Based Hierarchical Clustering

We address the classical problem of hierarchical clustering, but in a framework where one does not have access to a representation of the objects or their pairwise similarities. Instead, we assume that only a set of comparisons between objects is available, that is, statements of the form "objects $i$ and $j$ are more similar than objects $k$ and $l$." Such a scenario is commonly encountered in crowdsourcing applications. The focus of this work is to develop comparison-based hierarchical clustering algorithms that do not rely on the principles of ordinal embedding. We show that single and complete linkage are inherently comparison-based and we develop variants of average linkage. We provide statistical guarantees for the different methods under a planted hierarchical partition model. We also empirically demonstrate the performance of the proposed approaches on several datasets.

stat.ML↗