BayesBlend: Easy Model Blending using Pseudo-Bayesian Model Averaging, Stacking and Hierarchical Stacking in Python
0
📈
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Combining predictions from multiple models often performs better than any single model alone
- This is especially true when the true model is not among the set of candidate models
- Model averaging has a long history in statistics and machine learning, with various methods to estimate model weights
- However, there are few software packages that can handle the full range of model averaging methods
- The BayesBlend Python package aims to address this by providing a user-friendly interface to estimate weights and blend multiple (Bayesian) models' predictions
Plain English Explanation
When it comes to making predictions, averaging the results from multiple competing models can often outperform using a single model alone. This is particularly useful in situations where the true underlying model is not actually included in the set of models being considered - a scenario known as the
However, there has been a lack of user-friendly software packages that can handle the full range of model averaging methods. The BayesBlend Python package aims to fill this gap, providing a easy-to-use interface for estimating model weights and blending the predictions from multiple Bayesian models into a coherent predictive distribution. This allows researchers and practitioners to more easily leverage the power of model averaging, even when working with complex federated learning or causal latent factor models.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces the BayesBlend Python package, which provides a user-friendly interface for estimating model weights and blending the predictive distributions from multiple Bayesian models. BayesBlend implements several methods for this task, including pseudo-Bayesian model averaging and stacking, as well as a unique approach called hierarchical Bayesian stacking.
The motivation behind BayesBlend is that while model averaging is a well-established technique, there are few existing software packages that can handle the full variety of methods available. The authors argue that being able to easily apply model averaging is particularly important in
The paper demonstrates the usage of BayesBlend through examples of insurance loss modeling. By blending the predictions from multiple models, the authors show that the combined predictive performance can exceed that of any single model.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a useful contribution by introducing the BayesBlend package, which streamlines the process of applying model averaging techniques. This can be especially valuable in complex modeling scenarios, where the true underlying process may not be well-captured by any single candidate model.
However, the paper does not deeply explore the potential limitations or caveats of the model averaging approaches implemented in BayesBlend. For example, the performance of these methods may degrade if there are significant differences in the quality or appropriateness of the base models being combined. There could also be challenges in interpreting the meaning or implications of the blended predictive distribution.
Additionally, while the insurance loss modeling example is helpful, it would be valuable to see the package applied to a wider range of use cases to better understand its strengths and weaknesses. Readers are encouraged to think critically about how the model averaging techniques may perform in their specific domains of interest and to carefully evaluate the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions.
Conclusion
The BayesBlend Python package provides a user-friendly solution for applying model averaging techniques to blend the predictions from multiple Bayesian models. This can be particularly beneficial in
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
📈
0
BayesBlend: Easy Model Blending using Pseudo-Bayesian Model Averaging, Stacking and Hierarchical Stacking in Python
Nathaniel Haines, Conor Goold
Averaging predictions from multiple competing inferential models frequently outperforms predictions from any single model, providing that models are optimally weighted to maximize predictive performance. This is particularly the case in so-called $mathcal{M}$-open settings where the true model is not in the set of candidate models, and may be neither mathematically reifiable nor known precisely. This practice of model averaging has a rich history in statistics and machine learning, and there are currently a number of methods to estimate the weights for constructing model-averaged predictive distributions. Nonetheless, there are few existing software packages that can estimate model weights from the full variety of methods available, and none that blend model predictions into a coherent predictive distribution according to the estimated weights. In this paper, we introduce the BayesBlend Python package, which provides a user-friendly programming interface to estimate weights and blend multiple (Bayesian) models' predictive distributions. BayesBlend implements pseudo-Bayesian model averaging, stacking and, uniquely, hierarchical Bayesian stacking to estimate model weights. We demonstrate the usage of BayesBlend with examples of insurance loss modeling.
Read more5/2/2024
📈
0
Beyond Bayesian Model Averaging over Paths in Probabilistic Programs with Stochastic Support
Tim Reichelt, Luke Ong, Tom Rainforth
The posterior in probabilistic programs with stochastic support decomposes as a weighted sum of the local posterior distributions associated with each possible program path. We show that making predictions with this full posterior implicitly performs a Bayesian model averaging (BMA) over paths. This is potentially problematic, as BMA weights can be unstable due to model misspecification or inference approximations, leading to sub-optimal predictions in turn. To remedy this issue, we propose alternative mechanisms for path weighting: one based on stacking and one based on ideas from PAC-Bayes. We show how both can be implemented as a cheap post-processing step on top of existing inference engines. In our experiments, we find them to be more robust and lead to better predictions compared to the default BMA weights.
Read more4/15/2024
0
Bayesian vs. PAC-Bayesian Deep Neural Network Ensembles
Nick Hauptvogel, Christian Igel
Bayesian neural networks address epistemic uncertainty by learning a posterior distribution over model parameters. Sampling and weighting networks according to this posterior yields an ensemble model referred to as Bayes ensemble. Ensembles of neural networks (deep ensembles) can profit from the cancellation of errors effect: Errors by ensemble members may average out and the deep ensemble achieves better predictive performance than each individual network. We argue that neither the sampling nor the weighting in a Bayes ensemble are particularly well-suited for increasing generalization performance, as they do not support the cancellation of errors effect, which is evident in the limit from the Bernstein-von~Mises theorem for misspecified models. In contrast, a weighted average of models where the weights are optimized by minimizing a PAC-Bayesian generalization bound can improve generalization performance. This requires that the optimization takes correlations between models into account, which can be achieved by minimizing the tandem loss at the cost that hold-out data for estimating error correlations need to be available. The PAC-Bayesian weighting increases the robustness against correlated models and models with lower performance in an ensemble. This allows us to safely add several models from the same learning process to an ensemble, instead of using early-stopping for selecting a single weight configuration. Our study presents empirical results supporting these conceptual considerations on four different classification datasets. We show that state-of-the-art Bayes ensembles from the literature, despite being computationally demanding, do not improve over simple uniformly weighted deep ensembles and cannot match the performance of deep ensembles weighted by optimizing the tandem loss, which additionally come with non-vacuous generalization guarantees.
Read more6/11/2024
🌿
0
WASH: Train your Ensemble with Communication-Efficient Weight Shuffling, then Average
Louis Fournier (MLIA), Adel Nabli (MLIA, Mila), Masih Aminbeidokhti (ETS), Marco Pedersoli (ETS), Eugene Belilovsky (Mila), Edouard Oyallon
The performance of deep neural networks is enhanced by ensemble methods, which average the output of several models. However, this comes at an increased cost at inference. Weight averaging methods aim at balancing the generalization of ensembling and the inference speed of a single model by averaging the parameters of an ensemble of models. Yet, naive averaging results in poor performance as models converge to different loss basins, and aligning the models to improve the performance of the average is challenging. Alternatively, inspired by distributed training, methods like DART and PAPA have been proposed to train several models in parallel such that they will end up in the same basin, resulting in good averaging accuracy. However, these methods either compromise ensembling accuracy or demand significant communication between models during training. In this paper, we introduce WASH, a novel distributed method for training model ensembles for weight averaging that achieves state-of-the-art image classification accuracy. WASH maintains models within the same basin by randomly shuffling a small percentage of weights during training, resulting in diverse models and lower communication costs compared to standard parameter averaging methods.
Read more5/29/2024