Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Geisa, A

Polarity is all you need to learn and transfer faster

Authors: Qingyang Wang, Michael A. Powell, Ali Geisa, Eric W. Bridgeford, Joshua T. Vogelstein

Abstract: Natural intelligences (NIs) thrive in a dynamic world - they learn quickly, sometimes with only a few samples. In contrast, artificial intelligences (AIs) typically learn with a prohibitive number of training samples and computational power. What design principle difference between NI and AI could contribute to such a discrepancy? Here, we investigate the role of weight polarity: development proce… ▽ More Natural intelligences (NIs) thrive in a dynamic world - they learn quickly, sometimes with only a few samples. In contrast, artificial intelligences (AIs) typically learn with a prohibitive number of training samples and computational power. What design principle difference between NI and AI could contribute to such a discrepancy? Here, we investigate the role of weight polarity: development processes initialize NIs with advantageous polarity configurations; as NIs grow and learn, synapse magnitudes update, yet polarities are largely kept unchanged. We demonstrate with simulation and image classification tasks that if weight polarities are adequately set a priori, then networks learn with less time and data. We also explicitly illustrate situations in which a priori setting the weight polarities is disadvantageous for networks. Our work illustrates the value of weight polarities from the perspective of statistical and computational efficiency during learning. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2023; v1 submitted 29 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: ICML camera-ready

Why do networks have inhibitory/negative connections?

Authors: Qingyang Wang, Michael A. Powell, Ali Geisa, Eric Bridgeford, Carey E. Priebe, Joshua T. Vogelstein

Abstract: Why do brains have inhibitory connections? Why do deep networks have negative weights? We propose an answer from the perspective of representation capacity. We believe representing functions is the primary role of both (i) the brain in natural intelligence, and (ii) deep networks in artificial intelligence. Our answer to why there are inhibitory/negative weights is: to learn more functions. We pro… ▽ More Why do brains have inhibitory connections? Why do deep networks have negative weights? We propose an answer from the perspective of representation capacity. We believe representing functions is the primary role of both (i) the brain in natural intelligence, and (ii) deep networks in artificial intelligence. Our answer to why there are inhibitory/negative weights is: to learn more functions. We prove that, in the absence of negative weights, neural networks with non-decreasing activation functions are not universal approximators. While this may be an intuitive result to some, to the best of our knowledge, there is no formal theory, in either machine learning or neuroscience, that demonstrates why negative weights are crucial in the context of representation capacity. Further, we provide insights on the geometric properties of the representation space that non-negative deep networks cannot represent. We expect these insights will yield a deeper understanding of more sophisticated inductive priors imposed on the distribution of weights that lead to more efficient biological and machine learning. △ Less

Submitted 17 August, 2023; v1 submitted 5 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: ICCV2023 camera-ready

Deep Discriminative to Kernel Density Graph for In- and Out-of-distribution Calibrated Inference

Authors: Jayanta Dey, Haoyin Xu, Will LeVine, Ashwin De Silva, Tyler M. Tomita, Ali Geisa, Tiffany Chu, Jacob Desman, Joshua T. Vogelstein

Abstract: Deep discriminative approaches like random forests and deep neural networks have recently found applications in many important real-world scenarios. However, deploying these learning algorithms in safety-critical applications raises concerns, particularly when it comes to ensuring confidence calibration for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution data points. Many popular methods for in-distr… ▽ More Deep discriminative approaches like random forests and deep neural networks have recently found applications in many important real-world scenarios. However, deploying these learning algorithms in safety-critical applications raises concerns, particularly when it comes to ensuring confidence calibration for both in-distribution and out-of-distribution data points. Many popular methods for in-distribution (ID) calibration, such as isotonic and Platt's sigmoidal regression, exhibit excellent ID calibration performance. However, these methods are not calibrated for the entire feature space, leading to overconfidence in the case of out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. On the other end of the spectrum, existing out-of-distribution (OOD) calibration methods generally exhibit poor in-distribution (ID) calibration. In this paper, we address ID and OOD calibration problems jointly. We leveraged the fact that deep models, including both random forests and deep-nets, learn internal representations which are unions of polytopes with affine activation functions to conceptualize them both as partitioning rules of the feature space. We replace the affine function in each polytope populated by the training data with a Gaussian kernel. Our experiments on both tabular and vision benchmarks show that the proposed approaches obtain well-calibrated posteriors while mostly preserving or improving the classification accuracy of the original algorithm for ID region, and extrapolate beyond the training data to handle OOD inputs appropriately. △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2024; v1 submitted 31 January, 2022; originally announced January 2022.

Towards a theory of out-of-distribution learning

Authors: Jayanta Dey, Ali Geisa, Ronak Mehta, Tyler M. Tomita, Hayden S. Helm, Haoyin Xu, Eric Eaton, Jeffery Dick, Carey E. Priebe, Joshua T. Vogelstein

Abstract: Learning is a process wherein a learning agent enhances its performance through exposure of experience or data. Throughout this journey, the agent may encounter diverse learning environments. For example, data may be presented to the leaner all at once, in multiple batches, or sequentially. Furthermore, the distribution of each data sample could be either identical and independent (iid) or non-iid… ▽ More Learning is a process wherein a learning agent enhances its performance through exposure of experience or data. Throughout this journey, the agent may encounter diverse learning environments. For example, data may be presented to the leaner all at once, in multiple batches, or sequentially. Furthermore, the distribution of each data sample could be either identical and independent (iid) or non-iid. Additionally, there may exist computational and space constraints for the deployment of the learning algorithms. The complexity of a learning task can vary significantly, depending on the learning setup and the constraints imposed upon it. However, it is worth noting that the current literature lacks formal definitions for many of the in-distribution and out-of-distribution learning paradigms. Establishing proper and universally agreed-upon definitions for these learning setups is essential for thoroughly exploring the evolution of ideas across different learning scenarios and deriving generalized mathematical bounds for these learners. In this paper, we aim to address this issue by proposing a chronological approach to defining different learning tasks using the provably approximately correct (PAC) learning framework. We will start with in-distribution learning and progress to recently proposed lifelong or continual learning. We employ consistent terminology and notation to demonstrate how each of these learning frameworks represents a specific instance of a broader, more generalized concept of learnability. Our hope is that this work will inspire a universally agreed-upon approach to quantifying different types of learning, fostering greater understanding and progress in the field. △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2024; v1 submitted 29 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Inducing a hierarchy for multi-class classification problems

Authors: Hayden S. Helm, Weiwei Yang, Sujeeth Bharadwaj, Kate Lytvynets, Oriana Riva, Christopher White, Ali Geisa, Carey E. Priebe

Abstract: In applications where categorical labels follow a natural hierarchy, classification methods that exploit the label structure often outperform those that do not. Un-fortunately, the majority of classification datasets do not come pre-equipped with a hierarchical structure and classical flat classifiers must be employed. In this paper, we investigate a class of methods that induce a hierarchy that c… ▽ More In applications where categorical labels follow a natural hierarchy, classification methods that exploit the label structure often outperform those that do not. Un-fortunately, the majority of classification datasets do not come pre-equipped with a hierarchical structure and classical flat classifiers must be employed. In this paper, we investigate a class of methods that induce a hierarchy that can similarly improve classification performance over flat classifiers. The class of methods follows the structure of first clustering the conditional distributions and subsequently using a hierarchical classifier with the induced hierarchy. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the class of methods both for discovering a latent hierarchy and for improving accuracy in principled simulation settings and three real data applications. △ Less

Submitted 20 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

A partition-based similarity for classification distributions

Authors: Hayden S. Helm, Ronak D. Mehta, Brandon Duderstadt, Weiwei Yang, Christoper M. White, Ali Geisa, Joshua T. Vogelstein, Carey E. Priebe

Abstract: Herein we define a measure of similarity between classification distributions that is both principled from the perspective of statistical pattern recognition and useful from the perspective of machine learning practitioners. In particular, we propose a novel similarity on classification distributions, dubbed task similarity, that quantifies how an optimally-transformed optimal representation for a… ▽ More Herein we define a measure of similarity between classification distributions that is both principled from the perspective of statistical pattern recognition and useful from the perspective of machine learning practitioners. In particular, we propose a novel similarity on classification distributions, dubbed task similarity, that quantifies how an optimally-transformed optimal representation for a source distribution performs when applied to inference related to a target distribution. The definition of task similarity allows for natural definitions of adversarial and orthogonal distributions. We highlight limiting properties of representations induced by (universally) consistent decision rules and demonstrate in simulation that an empirical estimate of task similarity is a function of the decision rule deployed for inference. We demonstrate that for a given target distribution, both transfer efficiency and semantic similarity of candidate source distributions correlate with empirical task similarity. △ Less

Submitted 12 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

A Simple Lifelong Learning Approach

Authors: Joshua T. Vogelstein, Jayanta Dey, Hayden S. Helm, Will LeVine, Ronak D. Mehta, Tyler M. Tomita, Haoyin Xu, Ali Geisa, Qingyang Wang, Gido M. van de Ven, Chenyu Gao, Weiwei Yang, Bryan Tower, Jonathan Larson, Christopher M. White, Carey E. Priebe

Abstract: In lifelong learning, data are used to improve performance not only on the present task, but also on past and future (unencountered) tasks. While typical transfer learning algorithms can improve performance on future tasks, their performance on prior tasks degrades upon learning new tasks (called forgetting). Many recent approaches for continual or lifelong learning have attempted to maintain perf… ▽ More In lifelong learning, data are used to improve performance not only on the present task, but also on past and future (unencountered) tasks. While typical transfer learning algorithms can improve performance on future tasks, their performance on prior tasks degrades upon learning new tasks (called forgetting). Many recent approaches for continual or lifelong learning have attempted to maintain performance on old tasks given new tasks. But striving to avoid forgetting sets the goal unnecessarily low. The goal of lifelong learning should be to use data to improve performance on both future tasks (forward transfer) and past tasks (backward transfer). In this paper, we show that a simple approach -- representation ensembling -- demonstrates both forward and backward transfer in a variety of simulated and benchmark data scenarios, including tabular, vision (CIFAR-100, 5-dataset, Split Mini-Imagenet, and Food1k), and speech (spoken digit), in contrast to various reference algorithms, which typically failed to transfer either forward or backward, or both. Moreover, our proposed approach can flexibly operate with or without a computational budget. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2024; v1 submitted 27 April, 2020; originally announced April 2020.