On Safety in Machine Learning
|Author||: Tom Julian Viering|
|Promotor(s)||: Prof.dr. E. Eisemann, Dr. M. Loog|
|University||: Delft University of Technology|
|Year of publication||: 2023|
|Link to repository||: TU Delft Research Repository|
This dissertation focuses on safety in machine learning. Our adopted safety notion is related to robustness of learning algorithms. Related to this concept, we touch upon three topics: explainability, active learning and learning curves.
Complex models can often achieve better performance compared to simpler ones. Such larger models are more like blackboxes, whose inner workings are much harder to understand. However, explanations for their decisions may be required by law when these models are used, and may help us further improve them. For image data and CNNs, Grad-CAM produces explanations in the form of a heatmap. We construct CNNs whose heatmaps are manipulated, but whose predictions remain accurate, illustrating that Grad-CAM may not be robust enough for high stakes tasks such as self-driving cars.
Machine learning often require large amounts of data for learning. Data annotation is often expensive or difficult. Active learning aims to reduce labeling costs by selecting data in a smart way — instead of the default, random sampling. Active learning algorithms aim to find the most useful samples. Surprisingly, we find that active learning algorithms with strictly better performance guarantees perform worse empirically. The cause: their worst-case analysis is unrealistic. A more optimistic average-case analysis does explain our empirical results. Thus better guarantees do not always translate to better performance.
A learning curve visualizes the expected performance versus the sample size a learning algorithm is trained on. These curves are important for various applications, such as estimating the amount of data needed for learning. The conventional wisdom is that more data equals better performance. This means a learning curve strictly improves with more data, or in other words, is monotone. Deviations can surely be explained away by noise, chance, or a faulty experimental setup?
To many in our field this may come as a surprise, but this behavior cannot be explained away. We survey the literature and highlight various non-monotone behaviors, even in cases where the learner uses a correct model. Our survey finds that learning curves can have a variety of shapes, such as power laws or exponentials, but there is no consensus and a complete characterization remains an open problem. We also find simple learning problems in classification and regression that show new non-monotone behaviors. Our problems can be tuned so non-monotonicity occurs for any sample size.
Is there a universal solution to make learners montone? We design a wrapper algorithm that only adopt a new model if its performance is significantly better on validation data. We prove that the learning curve of the wrapper is monotone with a certain probability. This provides a first step towards safe learners that are guaranteed to improve with more data. Many questions regarding safety remain, however, this thesis may provide inspiration to develop more robust learning algorithms.
The main take-aways are (TLDR):
• Strictly tighter generalization bounds do not imply better performance.
• Explanations provided by Grad-CAM can be misleading.
• Even in simple settings more data can lead to worse performance.
• We provide ideas to construct learners that always improve with more data.