Particle Gibbs for Bayesian Additive Regression Trees

Additive regression trees are flexible non-parametric models and popular off-the-shelf tools for real-world non-linear regression. In application domains, such as bioinformatics, where there is also demand for probabilistic predictions with measures of uncertainty, the Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) model, introduced by Chipman et al. (2010), is increasingly popular. As data sets have grown in size, however, the standard Metropolis-Hastings algorithms used to perform inference in BART are proving inadequate. In particular, these Markov chains make local changes to the trees and suffer from slow mixing when the data are high-dimensional or the best fitting trees are more than a few layers deep. We present a novel sampler for BART based on the Particle Gibbs (PG) algorithm (Andrieu et al., 2010) and a top-down particle filtering algorithm for Bayesian decision trees (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2013). Rather than making local changes to individual trees, the PG sampler proposes a complete tree to fit the residual. Experiments show that the PG sampler outperforms existing samplers in many settings

Mondrian Forests for Large-Scale Regression when Uncertainty Matters

Many real-world regression problems demand a measure of the uncertainty associated with each prediction. Standard decision forests deliver efficient state-of-the-art predictive performance, but high-quality uncertainty estimates are lacking. Gaussian processes (GPs) deliver uncertainty estimates, but scaling GPs to large-scale data sets comes at the cost of approximating the uncertainty estimates. We extend Mondrian forests, first proposed by Lakshminarayanan et al. (2014) for classification problems, to the large-scale non-parametric regression setting. Using a novel hierarchical Gaussian prior that dovetails with the Mondrian forest framework, we obtain principled uncertainty estimates, while still retaining the computational advantages of decision forests. Through a combination of illustrative examples, real-world large-scale datasets, and Bayesian optimization benchmarks, we demonstrate that Mondrian forests outperform approximate GPs on large-scale regression tasks and deliver better-calibrated uncertainty assessments than decision-forest-based methods.Comment: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS) 2016, Cadiz, Spain. JMLR: W&CP volume 5

Do Deep Generative Models Know What They Don't Know?

A neural network deployed in the wild may be asked to make predictions for inputs that were drawn from a different distribution than that of the training data. A plethora of work has demonstrated that it is easy to find or synthesize inputs for which a neural network is highly confident yet wrong. Generative models are widely viewed to be robust to such mistaken confidence as modeling the density of the input features can be used to detect novel, out-of-distribution inputs. In this paper we challenge this assumption. We find that the density learned by flow-based models, VAEs, and PixelCNNs cannot distinguish images of common objects such as dogs, trucks, and horses (i.e. CIFAR-10) from those of house numbers (i.e. SVHN), assigning a higher likelihood to the latter when the model is trained on the former. Moreover, we find evidence of this phenomenon when pairing several popular image data sets: FashionMNIST vs MNIST, CelebA vs SVHN, ImageNet vs CIFAR-10 / CIFAR-100 / SVHN. To investigate this curious behavior, we focus analysis on flow-based generative models in particular since they are trained and evaluated via the exact marginal likelihood. We find such behavior persists even when we restrict the flows to constant-volume transformations. These transformations admit some theoretical analysis, and we show that the difference in likelihoods can be explained by the location and variances of the data and the model curvature. Our results caution against using the density estimates from deep generative models to identify inputs similar to the training distribution until their behavior for out-of-distribution inputs is better understood.Comment: ICLR 201