Semi-Implicit Variational Inference via Kernelized Path Gradient Descent

Semi-implicit variational inference (SIVI) is a powerful framework for approximating complex posterior distributions, but training with the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence can be challenging due to high variance and bias in high-dimensional settings. While current state-of-the-art semi-implicit variational inference methods, particularly Kernel Semi-Implicit Variational Inference (KSIVI), have been shown to work in high dimensions, training remains moderately expensive. In this work, we propose a kernelized KL divergence estimator that stabilizes training through nonparametric smoothing. To further reduce the bias, we introduce an importance sampling correction. We provide a theoretical connection to the amortized version of the Stein variational gradient descent, which estimates the score gradient via Stein's identity, showing that both methods minimize the same objective, but our semi-implicit approach achieves lower gradient variance. In addition, our method's bias in function space is benign, leading to more stable and efficient optimization. Empirical results demonstrate that our method outperforms or matches state-of-the-art SIVI methods in both performance and training efficiency.

Revisiting Unbiased Implicit Variational Inference

Recent years have witnessed growing interest in semi-implicit variational inference (SIVI) methods due to their ability to rapidly generate samples from complex distributions. However, since the likelihood of these samples is non-trivial to estimate in high dimensions, current research focuses on finding effective SIVI training routines. Although unbiased implicit variational inference (UIVI) has largely been dismissed as imprecise and computationally prohibitive because of its inner MCMC loop, we revisit this method and show that UIVI's MCMC loop can be effectively replaced via importance sampling and the optimal proposal distribution can be learned stably by minimizing an expected forward Kullback-Leibler divergence without bias. Our refined approach demonstrates superior performance or parity with state-of-the-art methods on established SIVI benchmarks.

Trust Me, I Know the Way: Predictive Uncertainty in the Presence of Shortcut Learning

The correct way to quantify predictive uncertainty in neural networks remains a topic of active discussion. In particular, it is unclear whether the state-of-the art entropy decomposition leads to a meaningful representation of model, or epistemic, uncertainty (EU) in the light of a debate that pits ignorance against disagreement perspectives. We aim to reconcile the conflicting viewpoints by arguing that both are valid but arise from different learning situations. Notably, we show that the presence of shortcuts is decisive for EU manifesting as disagreement.

Calibrating LLMs with Information-Theoretic Evidential Deep Learning

Fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) often exhibit overconfidence, particularly when trained on small datasets, resulting in poor calibration and inaccurate uncertainty estimates. Evidential Deep Learning (EDL), an uncertainty-aware approach, enables uncertainty estimation in a single forward pass, making it a promising method for calibrating fine-tuned LLMs. However, despite its computational efficiency, EDL is prone to overfitting, as its training objective can result in overly concentrated probability distributions. To mitigate this, we propose regularizing EDL by incorporating an information bottleneck (IB). Our approach IB-EDL suppresses spurious information in the evidence generated by the model and encourages truly predictive information to influence both the predictions and uncertainty estimates. Extensive experiments across various fine-tuned LLMs and tasks demonstrate that IB-EDL outperforms both existing EDL and non-EDL approaches. By improving the trustworthiness of LLMs, IB-EDL facilitates their broader adoption in domains requiring high levels of confidence calibration. Code is available at https://github.com/sandylaker/ib-edl.

Deep Weight Factorization: Sparse Learning Through the Lens of Artificial Symmetries

Sparse regularization techniques are well-established in machine learning, yet their application in neural networks remains challenging due to the non-differentiability of penalties like the $L_1$ norm, which is incompatible with stochastic gradient descent. A promising alternative is shallow weight factorization, where weights are decomposed into two factors, allowing for smooth optimization of $L_1$-penalized neural networks by adding differentiable $L_2$ regularization to the factors. In this work, we introduce deep weight factorization, extending previous shallow approaches to more than two factors. We theoretically establish equivalence of our deep factorization with non-convex sparse regularization and analyze its impact on training dynamics and optimization. Due to the limitations posed by standard training practices, we propose a tailored initialization scheme and identify important learning rate requirements necessary for training factorized networks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our deep weight factorization through experiments on various architectures and datasets, consistently outperforming its shallow counterpart and widely used pruning methods.

Privilege Scores

Bias-transforming methods of fairness-aware machine learning aim to correct a non-neutral status quo with respect to a protected attribute (PA). Current methods, however, lack an explicit formulation of what drives non-neutrality. We introduce privilege scores (PS) to measure PA-related privilege by comparing the model predictions in the real world with those in a fair world in which the influence of the PA is removed. At the individual level, PS can identify individuals who qualify for affirmative action; at the global level, PS can inform bias-transforming policies. After presenting estimation methods for PS, we propose privilege score contributions (PSCs), an interpretation method that attributes the origin of privilege to mediating features and direct effects. We provide confidence intervals for both PS and PSCs. Experiments on simulated and real-world data demonstrate the broad applicability of our methods and provide novel insights into gender and racial privilege in mortgage and college admissions applications.

Constructing Confidence Intervals for 'the' Generalization Error -- a Comprehensive Benchmark Study

When assessing the quality of prediction models in machine learning, confidence intervals (CIs) for the generalization error, which measures predictive performance, are a crucial tool. Luckily, there exist many methods for computing such CIs and new promising approaches are continuously being proposed. Typically, these methods combine various resampling procedures, most popular among them cross-validation and bootstrapping, with different variance estimation techniques. Unfortunately, however, there is currently no consensus on when any of these combinations may be most reliably employed and how they generally compare. In this work, we conduct the first large-scale study comparing CIs for the generalization error - empirically evaluating 13 different methods on a total of 18 tabular regression and classification problems, using four different inducers and a total of eight loss functions. We give an overview of the methodological foundations and inherent challenges of constructing CIs for the generalization error and provide a concise review of all 13 methods in a unified framework. Finally, the CI methods are evaluated in terms of their relative coverage frequency, width, and runtime. Based on these findings, we are able to identify a subset of methods that we would recommend. We also publish the datasets as a benchmarking suite on OpenML and our code on GitHub to serve as a basis for further studies.

Efficient and Accurate Explanation Estimation with Distribution Compression

Exact computation of various machine learning explanations requires numerous model evaluations and in extreme cases becomes impractical. The computational cost of approximation increases with an ever-increasing size of data and model parameters. Many heuristics have been proposed to approximate post-hoc explanations efficiently. This paper shows that the standard i.i.d. sampling used in a broad spectrum of algorithms for explanation estimation leads to an approximation error worthy of improvement. To this end, we introduce Compress Then Explain (CTE), a new paradigm for more efficient and accurate explanation estimation. CTE uses distribution compression through kernel thinning to obtain a data sample that best approximates the marginal distribution. We show that CTE improves the estimation of removal-based local and global explanations with negligible computational overhead. It often achieves an on-par explanation approximation error using 2-3x less samples, i.e. requiring 2-3x less model evaluations. CTE is a simple, yet powerful, plug-in for any explanation method that now relies on i.i.d. sampling.

On the Robustness of Global Feature Effect Explanations

We study the robustness of global post-hoc explanations for predictive models trained on tabular data. Effects of predictor features in black-box supervised learning are an essential diagnostic tool for model debugging and scientific discovery in applied sciences. However, how vulnerable they are to data and model perturbations remains an open research question. We introduce several theoretical bounds for evaluating the robustness of partial dependence plots and accumulated local effects. Our experimental results with synthetic and real-world datasets quantify the gap between the best and worst-case scenarios of (mis)interpreting machine learning predictions globally.

A Large-Scale Neutral Comparison Study of Survival Models on Low-Dimensional Data

This work presents the first large-scale neutral benchmark experiment focused on single-event, right-censored, low-dimensional survival data. Benchmark experiments are essential in methodological research to scientifically compare new and existing model classes through proper empirical evaluation. Existing benchmarks in the survival literature are often narrow in scope, focusing, for example, on high-dimensional data. Additionally, they may lack appropriate tuning or evaluation procedures, or are qualitative reviews, rather than quantitative comparisons. This comprehensive study aims to fill the gap by neutrally evaluating a broad range of methods and providing generalizable conclusions. We benchmark 18 models, ranging from classical statistical approaches to many common machine learning methods, on 32 publicly available datasets. The benchmark tunes for both a discrimination measure and a proper scoring rule to assess performance in different settings. Evaluating on 8 survival metrics, we assess discrimination, calibration, and overall predictive performance of the tested models. Using discrimination measures, we find that no method significantly outperforms the Cox model. However, (tuned) Accelerated Failure Time models were able to achieve significantly better results with respect to overall predictive performance as measured by the right-censored log-likelihood. Machine learning methods that performed comparably well include Oblique Random Survival Forests under discrimination, and Cox-based likelihood-boosting under overall predictive performance. We conclude that for predictive purposes in the standard survival analysis setting of low-dimensional, right-censored data, the Cox Proportional Hazards model remains a simple and robust method, sufficient for practitioners.