Maximum Likelihood with Bias-Corrected Calibration is Hard-To-Beat at Label Shift Adaptation
Authors:
Amr Alexandari,
Anshul Kundaje,
Avanti Shrikumar
Abstract:
Label shift refers to the phenomenon where the prior class probability p(y) changes between the training and test distributions, while the conditional probability p(x|y) stays fixed. Label shift arises in settings like medical diagnosis, where a classifier trained to predict disease given symptoms must be adapted to scenarios where the baseline prevalence of the disease is different. Given estimat…
▽ More
Label shift refers to the phenomenon where the prior class probability p(y) changes between the training and test distributions, while the conditional probability p(x|y) stays fixed. Label shift arises in settings like medical diagnosis, where a classifier trained to predict disease given symptoms must be adapted to scenarios where the baseline prevalence of the disease is different. Given estimates of p(y|x) from a predictive model, Saerens et al. proposed an efficient maximum likelihood algorithm to correct for label shift that does not require model retraining, but a limiting assumption of this algorithm is that p(y|x) is calibrated, which is not true of modern neural networks. Recently, Black Box Shift Learning (BBSL) and Regularized Learning under Label Shifts (RLLS) have emerged as state-of-the-art techniques to cope with label shift when a classifier does not output calibrated probabilities, but both methods require model retraining with importance weights and neither has been benchmarked against maximum likelihood. Here we (1) show that combining maximum likelihood with a type of calibration we call bias-corrected calibration outperforms both BBSL and RLLS across diverse datasets and distribution shifts, (2) prove that the maximum likelihood objective is concave, and (3) introduce a principled strategy for estimating source-domain priors that improves robustness to poor calibration. This work demonstrates that the maximum likelihood with appropriate calibration is a formidable and efficient baseline for label shift adaptation; notebooks reproducing experiments available at https://github.com/kundajelab/labelshiftexperiments
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2020; v1 submitted 21 January, 2019;
originally announced January 2019.
A General Framework for Abstention Under Label Shift
Authors:
Amr M. Alexandari,
Anshul Kundaje,
Avanti Shrikumar
Abstract:
In safety-critical applications of machine learning, it is often important to abstain from making predictions on low confidence examples. Standard abstention methods tend to be focused on optimizing top-k accuracy, but in many applications, accuracy is not the metric of interest. Further, label shift (a shift in class proportions between training time and prediction time) is ubiquitous in practica…
▽ More
In safety-critical applications of machine learning, it is often important to abstain from making predictions on low confidence examples. Standard abstention methods tend to be focused on optimizing top-k accuracy, but in many applications, accuracy is not the metric of interest. Further, label shift (a shift in class proportions between training time and prediction time) is ubiquitous in practical settings, and existing abstention methods do not handle label shift well. In this work, we present a general framework for abstention that can be applied to optimize any metric of interest, that is adaptable to label shift at test time, and that works out-of-the-box with any classifier that can be calibrated. Our approach leverages recent reports that calibrated probability estimates can be used as a proxy for the true class labels, thereby allowing us to estimate the change in an arbitrary metric if an example were abstained on. We present computationally efficient algorithms under our framework to optimize sensitivity at a target specificity, auROC, and the weighted Cohen's Kappa, and introduce a novel strong baseline based on JS divergence from prior class probabilities. Experiments on synthetic, biological, and clinical data support our findings.
△ Less
Submitted 19 June, 2022; v1 submitted 20 February, 2018;
originally announced February 2018.
