We consider representation learning (with hypothesis class $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{F}\circ\mathcal{G}$) where training and test distributions can be different. Recent studies provide hints and failure examples for domain invariant representation learning, a common approach to this problem, but are inadequate for fully understanding the phenomena. In this paper, we provide new decompositions of risk which provide finer-grained explanations and clarify potential generalization issues. For Single-Source Domain Adaptation, we give an exact risk decomposition, an equality, where target risk is the sum of three factors: (1) source risk, (2) representation conditional label divergence, and (3) representation covariate shift. We derive a similar decomposition for the Multi-Source case. These decompositions reveal factors (2) and (3) as the precise reasons for failing to generalize. For example, we demonstrate that domain adversarial neural networks (DANN) attempt to regularize for (3) but miss (2), while a recent technique Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM) attempts to account for (2) but may suffer from not considering (3). We also verify these observations experimentally.
We study the problem of learning Granger causality between event types from asynchronous, interdependent, multi-type event sequences. Existing work suffers from either limited model flexibility or poor model explainability and thus fails to uncover Granger causality across a wide variety of event sequences with diverse event interdependency. To address these weaknesses, we propose CAUSE (Causality from AttribUtions on Sequence of Events), a novel framework for the studied task. The key idea of CAUSE is to first implicitly capture the underlying event interdependency by fitting a neural point process, and then extract from the process a Granger causality statistic using an axiomatic attribution method. Across multiple datasets riddled with diverse event interdependency, we demonstrate that CAUSE achieves superior performance on correctly inferring the inter-type Granger causality over a range of state-of-the-art methods.
We theoretically and empirically explore the explainability benefits of adversarial learning in logistic regression models on structured datasets. In particular we focus on improved explainability due to significantly higher $\textit{feature-concentration}$ in adversarially-learned models: Compared to natural training, adversarial training tends to more efficiently shrink the weights of non-predictive and weakly-predictive features, while model performance on natural test data only degrades slightly (and even sometimes improves), compared to that of a naturally trained model. We provide theoretical insight into this phenomenon via an analysis of the expectation of the logistic model weight updates by an SGD-based adversarial learning algorithm, where examples are drawn from a random binary data-generation process. We empirically demonstrate the feature-pruning effect on a synthetic dataset, some datasets from the UCI repository, and real-world large-scale advertising response-prediction data-sets from MediaMath. In several of the MediaMath datasets there are 10s of millions of data points, and on the order of 100,000 sparse categorical features, and adversarial learning often results in model-size reduction by a factor of 20 or higher, and yet the model performance on natural test data (measured by AUC) is comparable to (and sometimes even better than) that of the naturally trained model. We also show that traditional $\ell_1$ regularization does not even come close to achieving this level of feature-concentration. We measure "feature concentration" using the Integrated Gradients-based feature-attribution method of Sundararajan et. al (2017), and derive a new closed-form expression for 1-layer networks, which substantially speeds up computation of aggregate feature attributions across a large dataset.