Showing 1–8 of 8 results for author: Xie, S M

Extending the WILDS Benchmark for Unsupervised Adaptation

Authors: Shiori Sagawa, Pang Wei Koh, Tony Lee, Irena Gao, Sang Michael Xie, Kendrick Shen, Ananya Kumar, Weihua Hu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Henrik Marklund, Sara Beery, Etienne David, Ian Stavness, Wei Guo, Jure Leskovec, Kate Saenko, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Sergey Levine, Chelsea Finn, Percy Liang

Abstract: Machine learning systems deployed in the wild are often trained on a source distribution but deployed on a different target distribution. Unlabeled data can be a powerful point of leverage for mitigating these distribution shifts, as it is frequently much more available than labeled data and can often be obtained from distributions beyond the source distribution as well. However, existing distribu… ▽ More Machine learning systems deployed in the wild are often trained on a source distribution but deployed on a different target distribution. Unlabeled data can be a powerful point of leverage for mitigating these distribution shifts, as it is frequently much more available than labeled data and can often be obtained from distributions beyond the source distribution as well. However, existing distribution shift benchmarks with unlabeled data do not reflect the breadth of scenarios that arise in real-world applications. In this work, we present the WILDS 2.0 update, which extends 8 of the 10 datasets in the WILDS benchmark of distribution shifts to include curated unlabeled data that would be realistically obtainable in deployment. These datasets span a wide range of applications (from histology to wildlife conservation), tasks (classification, regression, and detection), and modalities (photos, satellite images, microscope slides, text, molecular graphs). The update maintains consistency with the original WILDS benchmark by using identical labeled training, validation, and test sets, as well as the evaluation metrics. On these datasets, we systematically benchmark state-of-the-art methods that leverage unlabeled data, including domain-invariant, self-training, and self-supervised methods, and show that their success on WILDS is limited. To facilitate method development and evaluation, we provide an open-source package that automates data loading and contains all of the model architectures and methods used in this paper. Code and leaderboards are available at https://wilds.stanford.edu. △ Less

Submitted 23 April, 2022; v1 submitted 9 December, 2021; originally announced December 2021.

Why Do Pretrained Language Models Help in Downstream Tasks? An Analysis of Head and Prompt Tuning

Authors: Colin Wei, Sang Michael Xie, Tengyu Ma

Abstract: Pretrained language models have achieved state-of-the-art performance when adapted to a downstream NLP task. However, theoretical analysis of these models is scarce and challenging since the pretraining and downstream tasks can be very different. We propose an analysis framework that links the pretraining and downstream tasks with an underlying latent variable generative model of text -- the downs… ▽ More Pretrained language models have achieved state-of-the-art performance when adapted to a downstream NLP task. However, theoretical analysis of these models is scarce and challenging since the pretraining and downstream tasks can be very different. We propose an analysis framework that links the pretraining and downstream tasks with an underlying latent variable generative model of text -- the downstream classifier must recover a function of the posterior distribution over the latent variables. We analyze head tuning (learning a classifier on top of the frozen pretrained model) and prompt tuning in this setting. The generative model in our analysis is either a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) or an HMM augmented with a latent memory component, motivated by long-term dependencies in natural language. We show that 1) under certain non-degeneracy conditions on the HMM, simple classification heads can solve the downstream task, 2) prompt tuning obtains downstream guarantees with weaker non-degeneracy conditions, and 3) our recovery guarantees for the memory-augmented HMM are stronger than for the vanilla HMM because task-relevant information is easier to recover from the long-term memory. Experiments on synthetically generated data from HMMs back our theoretical findings. △ Less

Submitted 20 April, 2022; v1 submitted 16 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.

In-N-Out: Pre-Training and Self-Training using Auxiliary Information for Out-of-Distribution Robustness

Authors: Sang Michael Xie, Ananya Kumar, Robbie Jones, Fereshte Khani, Tengyu Ma, Percy Liang

Abstract: Consider a prediction setting with few in-distribution labeled examples and many unlabeled examples both in- and out-of-distribution (OOD). The goal is to learn a model which performs well both in-distribution and OOD. In these settings, auxiliary information is often cheaply available for every input. How should we best leverage this auxiliary information for the prediction task? Empirically acro… ▽ More Consider a prediction setting with few in-distribution labeled examples and many unlabeled examples both in- and out-of-distribution (OOD). The goal is to learn a model which performs well both in-distribution and OOD. In these settings, auxiliary information is often cheaply available for every input. How should we best leverage this auxiliary information for the prediction task? Empirically across three image and time-series datasets, and theoretically in a multi-task linear regression setting, we show that (i) using auxiliary information as input features improves in-distribution error but can hurt OOD error; but (ii) using auxiliary information as outputs of auxiliary pre-training tasks improves OOD error. To get the best of both worlds, we introduce In-N-Out, which first trains a model with auxiliary inputs and uses it to pseudolabel all the in-distribution inputs, then pre-trains a model on OOD auxiliary outputs and fine-tunes this model with the pseudolabels (self-training). We show both theoretically and empirically that In-N-Out outperforms auxiliary inputs or outputs alone on both in-distribution and OOD error. △ Less

Submitted 7 April, 2021; v1 submitted 8 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Comments: ICLR 2021

Composed Fine-Tuning: Freezing Pre-Trained Denoising Autoencoders for Improved Generalization

Authors: Sang Michael Xie, Tengyu Ma, Percy Liang

Abstract: We focus on prediction problems with structured outputs that are subject to output validity constraints, e.g. pseudocode-to-code translation where the code must compile. While labeled input-output pairs are expensive to obtain, "unlabeled" outputs, i.e. outputs without corresponding inputs, are freely available (e.g. code on GitHub) and provide information about output validity. We can capture the… ▽ More We focus on prediction problems with structured outputs that are subject to output validity constraints, e.g. pseudocode-to-code translation where the code must compile. While labeled input-output pairs are expensive to obtain, "unlabeled" outputs, i.e. outputs without corresponding inputs, are freely available (e.g. code on GitHub) and provide information about output validity. We can capture the output structure by pre-training a denoiser to denoise corrupted versions of unlabeled outputs. We first show that standard fine-tuning after pre-training destroys some of this structure. We then propose composed fine-tuning, which fine-tunes a predictor composed with the pre-trained denoiser, which is frozen to preserve output structure. For two-layer ReLU networks, we prove that composed fine-tuning significantly reduces the complexity of the predictor, thus improving generalization. Empirically, we show that composed fine-tuning improves over standard fine-tuning on two pseudocode-to-code translation datasets (3% and 6% relative). The improvement from composed fine-tuning is magnified on out-of-distribution (OOD) examples (4% and 25% relative). △ Less

Submitted 24 October, 2023; v1 submitted 29 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Comments: ICML 2021 Long talk

Understanding and Mitigating the Tradeoff Between Robustness and Accuracy

Authors: Aditi Raghunathan, Sang Michael Xie, Fanny Yang, John Duchi, Percy Liang

Abstract: Adversarial training augments the training set with perturbations to improve the robust error (over worst-case perturbations), but it often leads to an increase in the standard error (on unperturbed test inputs). Previous explanations for this tradeoff rely on the assumption that no predictor in the hypothesis class has low standard and robust error. In this work, we precisely characterize the eff… ▽ More Adversarial training augments the training set with perturbations to improve the robust error (over worst-case perturbations), but it often leads to an increase in the standard error (on unperturbed test inputs). Previous explanations for this tradeoff rely on the assumption that no predictor in the hypothesis class has low standard and robust error. In this work, we precisely characterize the effect of augmentation on the standard error in linear regression when the optimal linear predictor has zero standard and robust error. In particular, we show that the standard error could increase even when the augmented perturbations have noiseless observations from the optimal linear predictor. We then prove that the recently proposed robust self-training (RST) estimator improves robust error without sacrificing standard error for noiseless linear regression. Empirically, for neural networks, we find that RST with different adversarial training methods improves both standard and robust error for random and adversarial rotations and adversarial $\ell_\infty$ perturbations in CIFAR-10. △ Less

Submitted 6 July, 2020; v1 submitted 25 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Comments: Appearing at International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2020

Adversarial Training Can Hurt Generalization

Authors: Aditi Raghunathan, Sang Michael Xie, Fanny Yang, John C. Duchi, Percy Liang

Abstract: While adversarial training can improve robust accuracy (against an adversary), it sometimes hurts standard accuracy (when there is no adversary). Previous work has studied this tradeoff between standard and robust accuracy, but only in the setting where no predictor performs well on both objectives in the infinite data limit. In this paper, we show that even when the optimal predictor with infinit… ▽ More While adversarial training can improve robust accuracy (against an adversary), it sometimes hurts standard accuracy (when there is no adversary). Previous work has studied this tradeoff between standard and robust accuracy, but only in the setting where no predictor performs well on both objectives in the infinite data limit. In this paper, we show that even when the optimal predictor with infinite data performs well on both objectives, a tradeoff can still manifest itself with finite data. Furthermore, since our construction is based on a convex learning problem, we rule out optimization concerns, thus laying bare a fundamental tension between robustness and generalization. Finally, we show that robust self-training mostly eliminates this tradeoff by leveraging unlabeled data. △ Less

Submitted 26 August, 2019; v1 submitted 14 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.

Reparameterizable Subset Sampling via Continuous Relaxations

Authors: Sang Michael Xie, Stefano Ermon

Abstract: Many machine learning tasks require sampling a subset of items from a collection based on a parameterized distribution. The Gumbel-softmax trick can be used to sample a single item, and allows for low-variance reparameterized gradients with respect to the parameters of the underlying distribution. However, stochastic optimization involving subset sampling is typically not reparameterizable. To ove… ▽ More Many machine learning tasks require sampling a subset of items from a collection based on a parameterized distribution. The Gumbel-softmax trick can be used to sample a single item, and allows for low-variance reparameterized gradients with respect to the parameters of the underlying distribution. However, stochastic optimization involving subset sampling is typically not reparameterizable. To overcome this limitation, we define a continuous relaxation of subset sampling that provides reparameterization gradients by generalizing the Gumbel-max trick. We use this approach to sample subsets of features in an instance-wise feature selection task for model interpretability, subsets of neighbors to implement a deep stochastic k-nearest neighbors model, and sub-sequences of neighbors to implement parametric t-SNE by directly comparing the identities of local neighbors. We improve performance in all these tasks by incorporating subset sampling in end-to-end training. △ Less

Submitted 26 February, 2021; v1 submitted 29 January, 2019; originally announced January 2019.

Comments: IJCAI 2019

Semi-supervised Deep Kernel Learning: Regression with Unlabeled Data by Minimizing Predictive Variance

Authors: Neal Jean, Sang Michael Xie, Stefano Ermon

Abstract: Large amounts of labeled data are typically required to train deep learning models. For many real-world problems, however, acquiring additional data can be expensive or even impossible. We present semi-supervised deep kernel learning (SSDKL), a semi-supervised regression model based on minimizing predictive variance in the posterior regularization framework. SSDKL combines the hierarchical represe… ▽ More Large amounts of labeled data are typically required to train deep learning models. For many real-world problems, however, acquiring additional data can be expensive or even impossible. We present semi-supervised deep kernel learning (SSDKL), a semi-supervised regression model based on minimizing predictive variance in the posterior regularization framework. SSDKL combines the hierarchical representation learning of neural networks with the probabilistic modeling capabilities of Gaussian processes. By leveraging unlabeled data, we show improvements on a diverse set of real-world regression tasks over supervised deep kernel learning and semi-supervised methods such as VAT and mean teacher adapted for regression. △ Less

Submitted 4 March, 2019; v1 submitted 25 May, 2018; originally announced May 2018.

Comments: In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 2018