Quality of Information in Mobile Crowdsensing: Survey and Research Challenges

Smartphones have become the most pervasive devices in people's lives, and are clearly transforming the way we live and perceive technology. Today's smartphones benefit from almost ubiquitous Internet connectivity and come equipped with a plethora of inexpensive yet powerful embedded sensors, such as accelerometer, gyroscope, microphone, and camera. This unique combination has enabled revolutionary applications based on the mobile crowdsensing paradigm, such as real-time road traffic monitoring, air and noise pollution, crime control, and wildlife monitoring, just to name a few. Differently from prior sensing paradigms, humans are now the primary actors of the sensing process, since they become fundamental in retrieving reliable and up-to-date information about the event being monitored. As humans may behave unreliably or maliciously, assessing and guaranteeing Quality of Information (QoI) becomes more important than ever. In this paper, we provide a new framework for defining and enforcing the QoI in mobile crowdsensing, and analyze in depth the current state-of-the-art on the topic. We also outline novel research challenges, along with possible directions of future work.Comment: To appear in ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN

Weighted False Discovery Rate Control in Large-Scale Multiple Testing

The use of weights provides an effective strategy to incorporate prior domain knowledge in large-scale inference. This paper studies weighted multiple testing in a decision-theoretic framework. We develop oracle and data-driven procedures that aim to maximize the expected number of true positives subject to a constraint on the weighted false discovery rate. The asymptotic validity and optimality of the proposed methods are established. The results demonstrate that incorporating informative domain knowledge enhances the interpretability of results and precision of inference. Simulation studies show that the proposed method controls the error rate at the nominal level, and the gain in power over existing methods is substantial in many settings. An application to genome-wide association study is discussed.Comment: Revise

Efficient Uncertainty Quantification and Reduction for Over-Parameterized Neural Networks

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is important for reliability assessment and enhancement of machine learning models. In deep learning, uncertainties arise not only from data, but also from the training procedure that often injects substantial noises and biases. These hinder the attainment of statistical guarantees and, moreover, impose computational challenges on UQ due to the need for repeated network retraining. Building upon the recent neural tangent kernel theory, we create statistically guaranteed schemes to principally \emph{quantify}, and \emph{remove}, the procedural uncertainty of over-parameterized neural networks with very low computation effort. In particular, our approach, based on what we call a procedural-noise-correcting (PNC) predictor, removes the procedural uncertainty by using only \emph{one} auxiliary network that is trained on a suitably labeled data set, instead of many retrained networks employed in deep ensembles. Moreover, by combining our PNC predictor with suitable light-computation resampling methods, we build several approaches to construct asymptotically exact-coverage confidence intervals using as low as four trained networks without additional overheads

On the adequacy of current empirical evaluations of formal models of categorization

Categorization is one of the fundamental building blocks of cognition, and the study of categorization is notable for the extent to which formal modeling has been a central and influential component of research. However, the field has seen a proliferation of noncomplementary models with little consensus on the relative adequacy of these accounts. Progress in assessing the relative adequacy of formal categorization models has, to date, been limited because (a) formal model comparisons are narrow in the number of models and phenomena considered and (b) models do not often clearly define their explanatory scope. Progress is further hampered by the practice of fitting models with arbitrarily variable parameters to each data set independently. Reviewing examples of good practice in the literature, we conclude that model comparisons are most fruitful when relative adequacy is assessed by comparing well-defined models on the basis of the number and proportion of irreversible, ordinal, penetrable successes (principles of minimal flexibility, breadth, good-enough precision, maximal simplicity, and psychological focus)