论文标题

在存在虚假相关性的情况下进行特征学习

On Feature Learning in the Presence of Spurious Correlations

论文作者

Izmailov, Pavel, Kirichenko, Polina, Gruver, Nate, Wilson, Andrew Gordon

论文摘要

众所周知,深层分类器依赖于虚假特征$ \ unicode {x2013} $模式,这些模式与训练数据上的目标相关,但与学习问题固有的固有相关,例如对前景进行分类时的图像背景。在本文中,我们评估了可以从标准经验风险最小化(ERM)和专门的组鲁棒性培训中学到的核心(非流行)特征的信息量。在最新的深度功能重新加权(DFR)的工作之后,我们通过重新训练模型的最后一层在悬挂式集合中重新训练该特征表示形式,其中伪造相关性被损坏。在多个视觉和NLP问题上,我们表明,简单ERM所学的功能具有高度竞争力,具有针对降低虚假相关效果的专业组鲁棒性方法所学的功能。此外,我们表明,除了训练方法之外,诸如模型体系结构和训练策略之外的设计决策极大地影响了学习的功能表示形式的质量。另一方面,我们发现强大的正规化对于学习高质量的特征表示并不是必需的。最后,利用分析中的见解,我们可以显着改善有关流行的水鸟,塞尔巴头发颜色预测和野生型猎物问题的最佳结果,分别达到了97%,92%和50%最差的组精度。

Deep classifiers are known to rely on spurious features $\unicode{x2013}$ patterns which are correlated with the target on the training data but not inherently relevant to the learning problem, such as the image backgrounds when classifying the foregrounds. In this paper we evaluate the amount of information about the core (non-spurious) features that can be decoded from the representations learned by standard empirical risk minimization (ERM) and specialized group robustness training. Following recent work on Deep Feature Reweighting (DFR), we evaluate the feature representations by re-training the last layer of the model on a held-out set where the spurious correlation is broken. On multiple vision and NLP problems, we show that the features learned by simple ERM are highly competitive with the features learned by specialized group robustness methods targeted at reducing the effect of spurious correlations. Moreover, we show that the quality of learned feature representations is greatly affected by the design decisions beyond the training method, such as the model architecture and pre-training strategy. On the other hand, we find that strong regularization is not necessary for learning high quality feature representations. Finally, using insights from our analysis, we significantly improve upon the best results reported in the literature on the popular Waterbirds, CelebA hair color prediction and WILDS-FMOW problems, achieving 97%, 92% and 50% worst-group accuracies, respectively.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源