Assessing Model Generalization in Vicinity
2406.09257
0
0
Abstract
This paper evaluates the generalization ability of classification models on out-of-distribution test sets without depending on ground truth labels. Common approaches often calculate an unsupervised metric related to a specific model property, like confidence or invariance, which correlates with out-of-distribution accuracy. However, these metrics are typically computed for each test sample individually, leading to potential issues caused by spurious model responses, such as overly high or low confidence. To tackle this challenge, we propose incorporating responses from neighboring test samples into the correctness assessment of each individual sample. In essence, if a model consistently demonstrates high correctness scores for nearby samples, it increases the likelihood of correctly predicting the target sample, and vice versa. The resulting scores are then averaged across all test samples to provide a holistic indication of model accuracy. Developed under the vicinal risk formulation, this approach, named vicinal risk proxy (VRP), computes accuracy without relying on labels. We show that applying the VRP method to existing generalization indicators, such as average confidence and effective invariance, consistently improves over these baselines both methodologically and experimentally. This yields a stronger correlation with model accuracy, especially on challenging out-of-distribution test sets.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores assessing the generalization of machine learning models, particularly in the context of their performance in the vicinity of the training data distribution.
- The authors introduce a framework for evaluating model generalization that goes beyond standard metrics like test accuracy, focusing on how models behave in regions close to the training data.
- The paper discusses related work on model generalization and provides technical details on the proposed approach, including experiments and analysis.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how well machine learning models can generalize, or perform, on data that is similar to but not exactly the same as the data they were trained on. This is an important issue, as we often want models to work well not just on the specific examples they were trained on, but on related data that may come up in the real world.
The authors propose a new way to evaluate model generalization that goes beyond just looking at the model's overall accuracy on a test set. Instead, they look at how the model performs on data that is in the "vicinity" or close proximity to the training data. This can give a more nuanced understanding of the model's capabilities and limitations.
For example, imagine a model trained to recognize different types of flowers. The standard test might just check how well it does on a set of flower images it hasn't seen before. But the new approach advocated in this paper would also look at how the model behaves on images that are very similar to the training flowers, but with small changes like slightly different angles or lighting. This can reveal important details about the model's true understanding and generalization ability.
The paper reviews related work in this area, provides the technical details of the proposed framework, and presents experimental results demonstrating its usefulness. Overall, it offers a more comprehensive way to assess how well machine learning models can handle data that is related to but not identical to their training, which is crucial for real-world applications.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a framework for assessing model generalization in vicinity, which goes beyond standard metrics like test accuracy to evaluate how models perform on data similar to but not identical to the training distribution.
The authors first review related work on model generalization, including techniques for measuring out-of-distribution generalization and margin-based generalization.
They then introduce their proposed framework, which involves defining a "vicinity" around the training data and evaluating model performance within that vicinity. This allows them to assess not just overall test accuracy, but how the model behaves on data that is similar but not identical to the training examples.
The paper describes experiments applying this framework to several benchmark datasets and model architectures. The results demonstrate that this vicinity-based analysis can provide valuable insights beyond standard generalization metrics, revealing important details about a model's true capabilities and limitations.
The authors also discuss potential caveats and limitations of their approach, such as the challenge of defining an appropriate vicinity and the computational expense of the analysis.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the importance of looking beyond just test accuracy when assessing model generalization. The vicinity-based framework introduced provides a more nuanced and informative way to evaluate how well models can handle data that is related to but distinct from their training distribution.
One potential limitation is the subjectivity involved in defining the "vicinity" around the training data. The authors acknowledge this challenge and suggest using various techniques, but there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution. More research may be needed to develop robust and generalizable ways of characterizing model behavior in the vicinity of the training distribution.
Additionally, the computational expense of the vicinity analysis could be a practical barrier, especially for large-scale models and datasets. The authors mention this concern and suggest potential optimizations, but the scalability of the approach may warrant further investigation.
Overall, this paper offers a valuable contribution to the field of model evaluation and generalization assessment. By looking beyond standard metrics, it provides a more comprehensive understanding of a model's capabilities and limitations, which could have important implications for real-world deployment and responsible AI development.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a framework for assessing model generalization that goes beyond traditional test accuracy by focusing on how models perform in the vicinity of the training data distribution. The authors demonstrate that this vicinity-based analysis can reveal important insights about a model's true capabilities and limitations that may not be captured by standard evaluation metrics.
The proposed approach offers a more nuanced and informative way to evaluate model generalization, which could have significant implications for the development and deployment of machine learning systems in real-world applications. While the framework has some practical challenges, such as the subjectivity of defining the vicinity and computational expense, the authors provide thoughtful discussion and suggestions for addressing these limitations.
Overall, this paper represents an important contribution to the ongoing efforts to improve the robustness and reliability of machine learning models, paving the way for more comprehensive and responsible AI development.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Bridging Multicalibration and Out-of-distribution Generalization Beyond Covariate Shift
Jiayun Wu, Jiashuo Liu, Peng Cui, Zhiwei Steven Wu
0
0
We establish a new model-agnostic optimization framework for out-of-distribution generalization via multicalibration, a criterion that ensures a predictor is calibrated across a family of overlapping groups. Multicalibration is shown to be associated with robustness of statistical inference under covariate shift. We further establish a link between multicalibration and robustness for prediction tasks both under and beyond covariate shift. We accomplish this by extending multicalibration to incorporate grouping functions that consider covariates and labels jointly. This leads to an equivalence of the extended multicalibration and invariance, an objective for robust learning in existence of concept shift. We show a linear structure of the grouping function class spanned by density ratios, resulting in a unifying framework for robust learning by designing specific grouping functions. We propose MC-Pseudolabel, a post-processing algorithm to achieve both extended multicalibration and out-of-distribution generalization. The algorithm, with lightweight hyperparameters and optimization through a series of supervised regression steps, achieves superior performance on real-world datasets with distribution shift.
6/4/2024
🏷️
Harnessing the Power of Vicinity-Informed Analysis for Classification under Covariate Shift
Mitsuhiro Fujikawa, Yohei Akimoto, Jun Sakuma, Kazuto Fukuchi
0
0
Transfer learning enhances prediction accuracy on a target distribution by leveraging data from a source distribution, demonstrating significant benefits in various applications. This paper introduces a novel dissimilarity measure that utilizes vicinity information, i.e., the local structure of data points, to analyze the excess error in classification under covariate shift, a transfer learning setting where marginal feature distributions differ but conditional label distributions remain the same. We characterize the excess error using the proposed measure and demonstrate faster or competitive convergence rates compared to previous techniques. Notably, our approach is effective in situations where the non-absolute continuousness assumption, which often appears in real-world applications, holds. Our theoretical analysis bridges the gap between current theoretical findings and empirical observations in transfer learning, particularly in scenarios with significant differences between source and target distributions.
5/28/2024
🚀
Generalization Ability of Feature-based Performance Prediction Models: A Statistical Analysis across Benchmarks
Ana Nikolikj, Ana Kostovska, Gjorgjina Cenikj, Carola Doerr, Tome Eftimov
0
0
This study examines the generalization ability of algorithm performance prediction models across various benchmark suites. Comparing the statistical similarity between the problem collections with the accuracy of performance prediction models that are based on exploratory landscape analysis features, we observe that there is a positive correlation between these two measures. Specifically, when the high-dimensional feature value distributions between training and testing suites lack statistical significance, the model tends to generalize well, in the sense that the testing errors are in the same range as the training errors. Two experiments validate these findings: one involving the standard benchmark suites, the BBOB and CEC collections, and another using five collections of affine combinations of BBOB problem instances.
5/22/2024
🔮
On margin-based generalization prediction in deep neural networks
Coenraad Mouton
0
0
Understanding generalization in deep neural networks is an active area of research. A promising avenue of exploration has been that of margin measurements: the shortest distance to the decision boundary for a given sample or that sample's representation internal to the network. Margin-based complexity measures have been shown to be correlated with the generalization ability of deep neural networks in some circumstances but not others. The reasons behind the success or failure of these metrics are currently unclear. In this study, we examine margin-based generalization prediction methods in different settings. We motivate why these metrics sometimes fail to accurately predict generalization and how they can be improved. First, we analyze the relationship between margins measured in the input space and sample noise. We find that different types of sample noise can have a very different effect on the overall margin of a network that has modeled noisy data. Following this, we empirically evaluate how robust margins measured at different representational spaces are at predicting generalization. We find that these metrics have several limitations and that a large margin does not exhibit a strong correlation with empirical risk in many cases. Finally, we introduce a new margin-based measure that incorporates an approximation of the underlying data manifold. It is empirically demonstrated that this measure is generally more predictive of generalization than all other margin-based measures. Furthermore, we find that this measurement also outperforms other contemporary complexity measures on a well-known generalization prediction benchmark. In addition, we analyze the utility and limitations of this approach and find that this metric is well aligned with intuitions expressed in prior work.
5/29/2024