Ask Your Distribution Shift if Pre-Training is Right for You

Pre-training is a widely used approach to develop models that are robust to distribution shifts. However, in practice, its effectiveness varies: fine-tuning a pre-trained model improves robustness significantly in some cases but not at all in others (compared to training from scratch). In this work, we seek to characterize the failure modes that pre-training can and cannot address. In particular, we focus on two possible failure modes of models under distribution shift: poor extrapolation (e.g., they cannot generalize to a different domain) and biases in the training data (e.g., they rely on spurious features). Our study suggests that, as a rule of thumb, pre-training can help mitigate poor extrapolation but not dataset biases. After providing theoretical motivation and empirical evidence for this finding, we explore two of its implications for developing robust models: (1) pre-training and interventions designed to prevent exploiting biases have complementary robustness benefits, and (2) fine-tuning on a (very) small, non-diverse but de-biased dataset can result in significantly more robust models than fine-tuning on a large and diverse but biased dataset. Code is available at https://github.com/MadryLab/pretraining-distribution-shift-robustness.

Comparing the Value of Labeled and Unlabeled Data in Method-of-Moments Latent Variable Estimation

Labeling data for modern machine learning is expensive and time-consuming. Latent variable models can be used to infer labels from weaker, easier-to-acquire sources operating on unlabeled data. Such models can also be trained using labeled data, presenting a key question: should a user invest in few labeled or many unlabeled points? We answer this via a framework centered on model misspecification in method-of-moments latent variable estimation. Our core result is a bias-variance decomposition of the generalization error, which shows that the unlabeled-only approach incurs additional bias under misspecification. We then introduce a correction that provably removes this bias in certain cases. We apply our decomposition framework to three scenarios -- well-specified, misspecified, and corrected models -- to 1) choose between labeled and unlabeled data and 2) learn from their combination. We observe theoretically and with synthetic experiments that for well-specified models, labeled points are worth a constant factor more than unlabeled points. With misspecification, however, their relative value is higher due to the additional bias but can be reduced with correction. We also apply our approach to study real-world weak supervision techniques for dataset construction.