Label Learning Flows for Weakly Supervised Learning

Kernekoncepter

This paper introduces Label Learning Flows (LLF), a novel framework for weakly supervised learning that leverages conditional normalizing flows to model the uncertainty in label estimation, outperforming existing deterministic methods in classification and regression tasks.

Resumé

• Bibliographic Information: You Lu, Wenzhuo Song, Chidubem Arachie, & Bert Huang (2024). Weakly Supervised Label Learning Flows. Preprint submitted to Elsevier. arXiv:2302.09649v2 [cs.LG] 11 Nov 2024.
• Research Objective: This paper aims to address the limitations of existing deterministic weakly supervised learning methods by proposing a novel framework called Label Learning Flows (LLF) that utilizes conditional normalizing flows to model the uncertainty in label estimation.
• Methodology: LLF defines a constrained space of possible labels based on weak signals and optimizes the conditional log-likelihood of all possible labels within this space using a conditional generative flow. The model is trained inversely to avoid complex min-max optimization, and predictions are made using a sample average of generated labels.
• Key Findings: LLF demonstrates superior performance compared to state-of-the-art weakly supervised learning methods on various tasks, including classification and regression. Experiments on tabular, image, and text datasets show consistent improvements in accuracy and RMSE. The authors also demonstrate the importance of incorporating likelihood in the training process for improved performance.
• Main Conclusions: LLF offers a powerful and versatile approach to weakly supervised learning by effectively modeling label uncertainty using conditional normalizing flows. The framework's ability to handle various data types and weak supervision signals makes it a promising solution for real-world applications.
• Significance: This research significantly contributes to the field of weakly supervised learning by introducing a novel and effective framework that outperforms existing methods. The use of normalizing flows for label learning opens up new avenues for future research in this area.
• Limitations and Future Research: The authors acknowledge the sensitivity of LLF to weight initialization, leading to performance variance in some experiments. Future research could explore techniques for robust weight initialization or alternative optimization strategies to mitigate this issue. Additionally, investigating the application of LLF to other weakly supervised learning tasks, such as structured prediction or sequence labeling, could further broaden its impact.

Statistik

LLF outperforms other baselines on 9 out of 11 tabular and image datasets.
LLF achieves accuracy comparable to supervised learning on some datasets.
LLF outperforms other baselines on 2 out of 3 real text datasets.
LLF exhibits relatively larger variance on some datasets due to the impact of weight initialization on performance.

Citater

"To address this problem, we develop label learning flows (LLF), which is a general framework for weakly supervised learning problems."
"Our method models the uncertainty between 𝐱and 𝐲with a probability distribution 𝑝(𝐲|𝐱)."
"In training, we use the weak signals 𝐐to define a constrained space for 𝐲and then optimize the likelihood of all possible 𝐲s that are within this constrained space."

Vigtigste indsigter udtrukket fra

Weakly Supervised Label Learning Flows

by You Lu, Wenz... kl. arxiv.org 11-12-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.09649.pdf

Dybere Forespørgsler

How can the LLF framework be extended to handle more complex weak supervision signals, such as those derived from knowledge graphs or ontologies?

The current LLF framework primarily relies on converting weak supervision signals into mathematical constraints for the label space. While effective for simpler signals like error rate bounds or rule-based thresholds, handling the rich context of knowledge graphs or ontologies requires a more nuanced approach. Here are potential extensions:

Embedding-based Constraints: Instead of direct mathematical formulations, we can leverage knowledge graph embeddings. Entities in the knowledge graph (corresponding to data points or labels) are represented as vectors, and their relationships are captured by distance or similarity metrics in the embedding space. These relationships can be incorporated as constraints within the LLF framework. For instance, if two data points are known to be similar based on their knowledge graph representations, a constraint can be added to encourage their predicted labels to be similar as well.

Graph Neural Networks for Contextualization: Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) excel at aggregating information from neighboring nodes in a graph. We can use GNNs to process the knowledge graph and generate contextualized embeddings for data points and labels. These embeddings, enriched with information from the knowledge graph, can then be used as inputs to the LLF model, allowing it to learn more informed label distributions.

Probabilistic Logic Programming: Combining LLF with probabilistic logic programming frameworks like Markov Logic Networks (MLNs) can be beneficial. MLNs allow for expressing complex relationships and dependencies between entities using first-order logic rules. Weak supervision signals from knowledge graphs can be encoded as weighted formulas in the MLN, and the LLF model can be used to learn the probability distributions over the ground atoms, effectively combining the strengths of both approaches.

Hierarchical Constraints: Ontologies often exhibit hierarchical structures. This hierarchy can be exploited to define hierarchical constraints within the LLF framework. For example, if a data point belongs to a specific class in the ontology, constraints can be added to ensure its predicted label also falls under the same branch of the hierarchy.

By incorporating these extensions, LLF can effectively leverage the rich contextual information present in knowledge graphs and ontologies, leading to more accurate and robust weakly supervised learning.

Could the performance of LLF be improved by incorporating active learning strategies to selectively query ground truth labels for the most informative data points?

Yes, incorporating active learning strategies holds significant potential for improving LLF's performance, especially when some budget for obtaining ground truth labels is available. Here's how active learning can be integrated:

Uncertainty Sampling: LLF models the conditional distribution p(y|x). Active learning can exploit this by selecting data points where the model exhibits the highest uncertainty in its label predictions. For instance, data points with high entropy in their predicted label distribution or those where the model assigns similar probabilities to multiple labels can be prioritized for ground truth labeling.

Expected Model Change: This strategy focuses on selecting data points that are expected to induce the most significant changes in the LLF model's parameters upon being labeled. This can be estimated by analyzing the gradients of the LLF objective function with respect to the model parameters for different candidate data points.

Committee-Based Active Learning: Multiple LLF models can be trained with different initializations or hyperparameters. The disagreement among these models in their label predictions for a given data point can serve as a measure of uncertainty. Data points with high disagreement can be queried for ground truth labels.

Exploiting Constraints: The constraints imposed by weak supervision signals in LLF can be leveraged for active learning. Data points that lie close to the boundary of the feasible region defined by the constraints are likely to be more informative, as their labels can help refine the model's understanding of the constraint boundaries.

By selectively querying ground truth labels for the most informative data points, active learning can guide the LLF model to focus on regions of the data space where it is most uncertain or where obtaining labeled data would be most beneficial, leading to faster convergence and improved performance with fewer labeled examples.

What are the potential implications of using generative models like LLF for weakly supervised learning in domains with ethical considerations, such as healthcare or finance?

While generative models like LLF offer promising avenues for weakly supervised learning, their application in ethically sensitive domains like healthcare and finance necessitates careful consideration of potential implications:

Fairness and Bias: LLF learns from the provided weak supervision signals, which might be inherently biased. If these signals reflect existing societal biases (e.g., in healthcare data, biases related to race, gender, or socioeconomic status), the LLF model can perpetuate and even amplify these biases in its predictions. This can lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes, particularly in healthcare decisions or financial risk assessments.

Transparency and Explainability: The probabilistic nature of LLF, while powerful, can make it challenging to interpret the model's decision-making process. In healthcare, understanding why a model made a particular diagnosis or treatment recommendation is crucial for building trust and ensuring accountability. Similarly, in finance, transparent models are essential for regulatory compliance and to provide justifications for loan approvals or investment decisions.

Data Privacy and Security: LLF, like other deep learning models, can be vulnerable to adversarial attacks or data poisoning. In healthcare, where data is highly sensitive, ensuring the privacy and security of patient information is paramount. Malicious actors could potentially exploit vulnerabilities in LLF models to gain access to confidential data or manipulate predictions for their benefit.

Over-reliance and Automation Bias: The use of LLF in healthcare or finance should not lead to an over-reliance on its predictions or replace human judgment entirely. Clinicians and financial experts should treat the model's outputs as decision support tools and exercise their expertise in interpreting results and making final decisions.

Unintended Consequences: Deploying LLF models in real-world settings can have unforeseen consequences. For instance, in finance, a model trained on historical data might not generalize well to rapidly changing market conditions, potentially leading to financial losses.

To mitigate these ethical concerns, it is crucial to:

Ensure diverse and unbiased training data: Carefully curate the data used for training LLF models to minimize biases and promote fairness.
Develop methods for model interpretability: Invest in research on techniques to explain LLF's predictions and provide insights into its decision-making process.
Implement robust privacy-preserving mechanisms: Employ techniques like differential privacy or federated learning to protect sensitive data during training and deployment.
Establish clear guidelines and regulations: Develop ethical guidelines and regulations for the development and deployment of AI systems in healthcare and finance, focusing on transparency, accountability, and human oversight.
By addressing these ethical considerations proactively, we can harness the potential of generative models like LLF for weakly supervised learning in sensitive domains while ensuring fairness, transparency, and responsible AI development.