PreprintCited by 31Machine Learning and AlgorithmsMachine Learning and Data ClassificationStatistical Methods and Inference

Knowing what you know: valid and validated confidence sets in multiclass and multilabel prediction

Open access
Cauchois, Maxime, Gupta, Suyash, Duchi, John·2020·arXiv

Abstract

We develop conformal prediction methods for constructing valid predictive confidence sets in multiclass and multilabel problems without assumptions on the data generating distribution. A challenge here is that typical conformal prediction methods---which give marginal validity (coverage) guarantees---provide uneven coverage, in that they address easy examples at the expense of essentially ignoring difficult examples. By leveraging ideas from quantile regression, we build methods that always guarantee correct coverage but additionally provide (asymptotically optimal) conditional coverage for both multiclass and multilabel prediction problems. To address the potential challenge of exponentially large confidence sets in multilabel prediction, we build tree-structured classifiers that efficiently account for interactions between labels. Our methods can be bolted on top of any classification model---neural network, random forest, boosted tree---to guarantee its validity. We also provide an empirical evaluation, simultaneously providing new validation methods, that suggests the more robust coverage of our confidence sets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2004.10181

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel J. Candès, Aaditya Ramdas, and Ryan J. Tibshirani. The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference. arXiv:1903.04684v2 [math.ST], 2019. · arXiv
  2. P. L. Bartlett, M. I. Jordan, and J. McAuliffe. Convexity, classification, and risk bounds. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101:138-156, 2006.
  3. Matthew R Boutell, Jiebo Luo, Xipeng Shen, and Christopher M Brown. Learning multi-label scene classification. Pattern Recognition, 37(9):1757-1771, 2004.
  4. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  5. C. K. Chow and C. N. Liu. Approximating discrete probability distributions with de- pendence trees. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 14(3):462-467, 1968.
  6. A. P. Dawid. Applications of a general propagation algorithm for probabilistic expert systems. Statistics and Computing, 2(1):25-36, 1992.
  7. Erick Delage and Yinyu Ye. Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncer- tainty with application to data-driven problems. Operations Research, 58(3):595-612, 2010.
  8. J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248-255, 2009.
  9. John C. Duchi and Hongseok Namkoong. Learning models with uniform performance via distributionally robust optimization. arXiv:1810.08750 [stat.ML], 2018. · arXiv
  10. M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge 2007 (VOC2007) Results, 2007. URL http: //www.pascal-network.org/challenges/VOC/voc2007/workshop/index.html.
  11. M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. I. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. The PASCAL Visual Object Classes Challenge 2012 (VOC2012) Results, 2012. URL http: //www.pascal-network.org/challenges/VOC/voc2012/workshop/index.html.
  12. Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29, 2016.
  13. Tatsunori Hashimoto, Megha Srivastava, Hongseok Namkoong, and Percy Liang. Fair- ness without demographics in repeated loss minimization. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2018.
  14. Yotam Hechtlinger, Barnabás Póczos, and Larry Wasserman. Cautious deep learning. arXiv:1805.09460 [stat.ML], 2019. · arXiv
  15. Francisco Herrera, Francisco Charte, Antonio J Rivera, and María J Del Jesus. Multilabel classification. In Multilabel Classification, pages 17-31. Springer, 2016.
  16. Roger Koenker and Gilbert Bassett Jr. Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46(1):33-50, 1978.
  17. Daphne Koller and Nir Friedman. Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Tech- niques. MIT Press, 2009.
  18. J. Lafferty, A. McCallum, and F. Pereira. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 282-289, 2001.
  19. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ra- manan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision -ECCV 2014, pages 740-755, Cham, 2014. Springer In- ternational Publishing.
  20. Huma Lodhi, John Shawe-Taylor, Nello Cristianini, and Christopher J. C. H. Watkins. Text classification using string kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2:419-444, 2002.
  21. Andrew McCallum and Kamal Nigam. Employing EM in pool-based active learning for text classification. In Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference, 1998.
  22. Kai min Chung and Hsueh-I Lu. An optimal algorithm for the maximum-density segment problem. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, 2003.
  23. Yaniv Romano, Evan Patterson, and Emmanuel J. Candès. Conformalized quantile regression. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, 2019. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1905.03222.
  24. Yaniv Romano, Matteo Sesia, and Emmanuel J. Candès. Classification with valid and adaptive coverage. arXiv:2006.02544 [stat.ME], 2020. · arXiv
  25. Mauricio Sadinle, Jing Lei, and Larry Wasserman. Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114(525): 223-234, 2019. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1395341. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01621459.2017.1395341. · DOI
  26. Matteo Sesia and Emmanuel J. Candès. A comparison of some conformal quantile re- gression methods. arXiv:1909.05433 [stat.ME], 2019. · arXiv
  27. Christian Szegedy, Sergey Ioffe, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Alexander A. Alemi. Inception- v4, Inception-ResNet and the impact of residual connections on learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4278-4284, 2017.
  28. Mingxing Tan, Ruoming Pang, and Quoc V Le. EfficientDet: Scalable and efficient object detection. arXiv:1911.09070 [cs.CV], 2019. · arXiv
  29. A. Tewari and P. L. Bartlett. On the consistency of multiclass classification methods. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8:1007-1025, 2007.
  30. Vladimir Vovk. Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Machine Learning, volume 25 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 475-490, 2012. URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v25/ vovk12.html.
  31. Vladimir Vovk, Alexander Grammerman, and Glenn Shafer. Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2005.
  32. Martin J. Wainwright and Michael I. Jordan. Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 1(1-2):1-305, 2008.
  33. Min-Ling Zhang and Zhi-Hua Zhou. Multilabel neural networks with applications to functional genomics and text categorization. IEEE transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(10):1338-1351, 2006.
  34. T. Zhang. Statistical analysis of some multi-category large margin classification methods. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5:1225-1251, 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cauchois, M., Gupta, S., & Duchi, J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
22
Issue
81
Pages
1-42
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3041560869
Cited by
31
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Journal of Machine Learning Research
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1934578, 1553086, CAREER)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-19-2288, N00014-19, N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
conformal prediction, multi-class classification, multi-label classification, conditional coverage, quantile regression, coverage guarantees

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review