To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifier
Knowing when a classifier’s prediction can be trusted is useful in many applications and critical for safely using AI. While the bulk of the effort in machine learning research has been towards improving classifier performance, understanding when a classifier’s predictions should and should not be trusted has received far less attention. The standard approach is to use the classifier’s discriminant or confidence score; however, we show there exists a considerably more effective alternative.
We propose a new score, called the trust score, which measures the agreement between the classifier and a modified nearest-neighbor classifier on the testing example. We show empirically that high (low) trust scores produce surprisingly high precision at identifying correctly (incorrectly) classified examples, consistently outperforming the classifier’s confidence score as well as many other baselines.
Further, under some mild distributional assumptions, we show that if the trust score for an example is high (low), the classifier will likely agree (disagree) with the Bayes-optimal classifier. Our guarantees consist of non-asymptotic rates of statistical consistency under various nonparametric settings and build on recent developments in topological data analysis.
To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifier
Heinrich Jiang††thanks: Equal Contribution. Google Research email@example.com Been Kim Google Brain firstname.lastname@example.org Maya Gupta Google Research email@example.com
Machine learning (ML) is a powerful and widely-used tool for making potentially important decisions, from product recommendations to medical diagnosis. However, despite ML’s impressive performance, it makes mistakes, with some more costly than others. While improving overall accuracy is an important goal that the bulk of the effort in ML community has been focused on, it may not be enough: we need to also better understand the strengths and limitations of ML techniques.
This work focuses on one such challenge: knowing whether a classifier’s prediction for a test example can be trusted or not. Such trust scores have tremendous practical applications. They can be directly shown to users to help them gauge whether they should trust the AI system. This is crucial when a model’s prediction influences important decisions such as a medical diagnosis, but can also be helpful even in low-stakes scenarios such as movie recommendations. Trust scores can be used to override the classifier and send the decision to a human operator, or to prioritize decisions that human operators should be making. Trust scores are also useful for monitoring classifiers to detect distribution shifts that may mean the classifier is no longer as useful as it was when launched.
A standard approach to deciding whether to trust a classifier’s decision is to use the classifiers’ own reported confidence or score, e.g. probabilities from the softmax layer of a neural network, distance to the separating hyperplane in support vector classification, mean class probabilities for the trees in a random forest. While using a model’s own implied confidences appears reasonable, it has been shown that the raw confidence values from a classifier are poorly calibrated (Guo et al., 2017; Kuleshov and Liang, 2015). Worse yet, even if the scores are calibrated, the ranking of the scores itself may not be reliable. In other words, a higher confidence score from the model does not necessarily imply higher probability that the classifier is correct, as shown in Provost et al. (1998); Goodfellow et al. (2014); Nguyen et al. (2015). A classifier may simply not be the best judge of its own trustworthiness.
In this paper, we use a set of labeled examples as side information to help determine a classifier’s trustworthiness for a particular testing example. First, we propose a simple procedure that reduces the training data to a high density set for each class. Then we define the trust score—the ratio between the distance from the testing sample to the nearest class different from the predicted class and the distance to the predicted class—to determine whether to trust that classifier prediction. This simple test comes with comprehensive theoretical guarantees as well as strong empirical results. Theoretically, we show that high/low trust scores correspond to high probability of agreement/disagreement with the Bayes-optimal classifier. We show finite-sample estimation rates when the data is full-dimension and supported on or near a low-dimensional manifold. Interestingly, we attain bounds that depend only on the lower manifold dimension and independent of the ambient dimension without any changes to the procedure or knowledge of the manifold. To our knowledge, these results are new and may be of independent interest.
We empirically validate this idea on various set of classifiers, including logistic regression, random forest and deep neural networks such as InceptionV3 (Szegedy et al., 2016; Deng et al., 2009). We show that the precision of the trust score outperforms a set of baselines across benchmark datasets, both categorical and images data.
2 Related Work
One related line of work is that of confidence calibration, which transforms classifier outputs into values that can be interpreted as probabilities, e.g. Platt et al. (1999); Zadrozny and Elkan (2002); Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana (2005); Guo et al. (2017). Kuleshov and Liang (2015) which explore the structured prediction setting, and Lakshminarayanan et al. (2017) obtain confidence estimates by using ensembles of networks. These calibration techniques typically only use the the model’s reported score (and the softmax layer in the case of a neural network) for calibration, which preserves the rankings of the classifier scores. Similarly, Hendrycks and Gimpel (2016) considered using the softmax probabilities for the related problem of identifying misclassifications and mislabeled points.
Recent work explored estimating uncertainty for Bayesian neural networks (Gal and Ghahramani, 2016; Kendall and Gal, 2017), returning a distribution over the outputs, by making a connection with dropout (Srivastava et al., 2014). Our trust score does not change the network structure (nor does it assume any structure) and gives a single score, rather than a distribution over outputs as the representation of uncertainty.
The problem of classification with a reject option or learning with abstention Bartlett and Wegkamp (2008); Yuan and Wegkamp (2010); Cortes et al. (2016b); Grandvalet et al. (2009); Cortes et al. (2016a); Herbei and Wegkamp (2006); Cortes et al. (2017) is a highly related framework where the classifier is allowed to abstain from making a prediction at a certain cost. Typically such methods jointly learn the classifier and the rejection function. Our paper assumes an already trained and possibly black-box classifier and learns the confidence scores separately, but we do not explicitly learn the appropriate rejection thresholds. The interplay between classification rate and reject rate is however studied in many various forms e.g. (Chow, 1970; Dubuisson and Masson, 1993; Fumera et al., 2000; Santos-Pereira and Pires, 2005; Tortorella, 2000; Fumera and Roli, 2002; Landgrebe et al., 2006; El-Yaniv and Wiener, 2010; Wiener and El-Yaniv, 2011; Tax and Duin, 2008).
Whether to trust a classifier also arises in the setting where one has access to a sequence of classifiers, but there is some cost to evaluating each classifier, and the goal is to decide after evaluating each classifier in the sequence if one should trust the current classifier decision enough to stop, rather than evaluating more classifiers in the sequence (e.g. Wang et al. (2015); Parrish et al. (2013); Fan et al. (2002)). Those confidence decisions are usually based on whether the current classifier score will match the classification of the full sequence.
Our work builds on recent results in topological data analysis. Our method to filter low-density points estimates a particular density level-set given a parameter , which aims at finding the level-set that contains fraction of the probability mass. Level-set estimation has a long history Hartigan (1975); Ester et al. (1996); Tsybakov et al. (1997); Singh et al. (2009); Rigollet et al. (2009); Jiang (2017a). However such works assume knowledge of the density level, which is difficult to determine in practice. We provide rates for Algorithm 1 in estimating the appropriate level-set corresponding to without knowledge of the level. To our knowledge this is the first time the proxy , which is a more intuitive parameter compared to the density value, is used for level-set estimation. Our analysis is also done under various settings including when the data lies near a lower dimensional manifold and we provide rates that depend only on the lower dimension.
3 Algorithm: The Trust Score
Our approach proceeds in two steps outlined in Algorithm 1 and 2. We first pre-process the training data, as described in Algorithm 1, to find the -high-density-set of each class, which is defined as the training samples within that class after filtering out -fraction of the samples with lowest density (which may be outliers):
Definition 1 (-high-density-set).
Let be a density function with compact support and . Then define , the -high-density-set of , to be the -level set of , defined as where .
In order to approximate the -high-density-set, Algorithm 1 filters the -fraction of the sample points with lowest empirical density, based on -nearest neighbors. This data filtering step is independent of the given classifier . Then, the second step: given a testing sample, we define its trust score to be the ratio between the distance from the testing sample to the -high-density-set of the nearest class different from the predicted class, and the distance from the test sample to the -high-density-set of the class predicted by , as detailed in Algorithm 2. The intuition is that if the classifier predicts a label that is considerably farther than the closest label, then this is a warning that the classifier may be making a mistake.
Our procedure can thus be viewed as a comparison to a modified nearest-neighbor classifier, where the modification lies in the initial filtering of points not in the -high-density-set for each class. We show in Section 4 that the proposed trust score can reveal signals from the Bayes-optimal classifier.
The trust score can be used as either a black-box method without using any of inner workings of classifier, or a white-box method where the distances are computed in some intermediate representational space of the classifier, such as a middle layer of a DNN. We show empirical results for both in Section 5.
The method has two hyperparameters: (the number of neighbors, such as in -NN) and (fraction of data to filter) to compute the empirical densities. We show in theory that can lie in a wide range and still give us the desired consistency guarantees. Throughout our experiments, we fix , and use cross-validation to select as it is data-dependent.
4 Theoretical Analysis
In this section, we provide theoretical guarantees for Algorithms 1 and 2. Due to space constraints, all the proofs are deferred to the appendix. To simplify the main text, we state our results treating , the confidence level, as a constant. The dependence on in the rates is made explicit in the Appendix.
We show that Algorithm 1 is a statistically consistent estimator of the -high-density-level set with finite-sample estimation rates. We analyze Algorithm 1 in three different settings. When the data lies on (i) full-dimensional ; (ii) an unknown lower dimensional submanifold embedded in ; and (iii) an unknown lower dimensional submanifold with full-dimensional noise.
For setting (i), where the data lies in , the estimation rate has a dependence on the dimension , which may be unattractive in high-dimensional situations: this is known as the curse of dimensionality, suffered by density-based procedures in general. However, when the data has low intrinsic dimension in (ii), it turns out that, remarkably, without any changes to the procedure, the estimation rate depends on the lower dimension and is independent of the ambient dimension . However, in realistic situations, the data may not lie exactly on a lower-dimensional manifold, but near one. This reflects the setting of (iii), where the data essentially lies on a manifold but has general full-dimensional noise so the data is overall full-dimensional. Interestingly, we show that we still obtain estimation rates depending only on the manifold dimension and independent of the ambient dimension; moreover, we don’t require knowledge of the manifold nor its dimension to attain these rates.
We then analyze Algorithm 2, and establish the culminating result of Theorem 4: for labeled data distributions with well-behaved class margins, when the trust score is large, the classifier likely agrees with the Bayes-optimal classifier, and when the trust score is small, the classifier likely disagrees with the Bayes-optimal classifier. If it turns out that even the Bayes-optimal classifier has high-error in a certain region, then any classifier will have difficulties in that region. Thus, this result does not guarantee that the trust score can predict misclassification, but rather that the classifier has a relatively high chance of not making the right decision, where high chance might mean close to fifty percent for a binary classifier.
4.1 Analysis of Algorithm 1
We require the following regularity assumptions on the boundaries of , which are standard in analyses of level-set estimation Singh et al. (2009). Assumption 1.1 ensures that the density around has both smoothness and curvature. The upper bound gives smoothness, which is important to ensure that our density estimators are accurate for our analysis (we only require this smoothness near the boundaries and not globally). The lower bound ensures curvature: this ensures that is salient enough to be estimated. Assumption 1.2 ensures that doesn’t get arbitrarily thin anywhere.
Assumption 1 (-high-density-set regularity).
Let . There exists s.t.
for all .
For all and , we have .
where denotes the boundary of a set , , and .
Our statistical guarantees are under the Hausdorff metric, which ensures a uniform guarantee over our estimator: it is a stronger notion of consistency than other common metrics Rigollet et al. (2009); Rinaldo and Wasserman (2010).
Definition 2 (Hausdorff distance).
We now give the following result for Algorithm 1. It says that as long as our density function satisfies the regularity assumptions stated earlier, and the parameter lies within a certain range, then we can bound the Hausdorff distance between what Algorithm 1 recovers and , the true -high-density set, from an i.i.d. sample drawn from of size . Then, as goes to , and grows as a function of , the quantity goes to .
Theorem 1 (Algorithm 1 guarantees).
. Let and suppose that is continuous and has compact support and satisfies Assumption 1. There exists constants depending on and such that the following holds with probability at least . Suppose that satisfies . Then we have
The condition on can be simplified by ignoring log factors: , which is a wide range. When optimizing , we obtain our consistency guarantee of
The first term is due to the error from estimating the appropriate level given (i.e. identifying the level ) and the second term corresponds to the error for recovering the level set given knowledge of the level. The latter term matches the lower bound for level-set estimation up to log factors Tsybakov et al. (1997).
4.2 Analysis of Algorithm 1 on Manifolds
One of the disadvantages of the last result is that the estimations errors have a dependence on , the dimension of the data, which may be highly undesirable in high-dimensional settings seen in practice. We next improve these rates when the data has a lower intrinsic dimension. Interestingly, we are able to show rates that depend only on the intrinsic dimension of the data, without explicit knowledge of that dimension nor any changes to the procedure. As common to related work in the manifold setting, we make the following regularity assumptions which are standard among works in manifold learning e.g. (Niyogi et al., 2008; Genovese et al., 2012; Balakrishnan et al., 2013).
Assumption 2 (Manifold Regularity).
is a -dimensional smooth compact Riemannian manifold without boundary embedded in compact subset with bounded volume. has finite condition number , which controls the curvature and prevents self-intersection.
Theorem 2 (Manifold analogue of Theorem 1).
When optimizing , we obtain (ignoring log factors)
The first term can be compared to that of the previous result where is replaced with . The second term is the error for recovering the level set on manifolds, which matches recent rates Jiang (2017a).
4.3 Analysis of Algorithm 1 on Manifolds with Full Dimensional Noise
In realistic settings, the data may not lie exactly on a low-dimensional manifold, but near one. We next present a result where the data is distributed along a manifold with additional full-dimensional noise. We make little assumptions on the noise distribution. Thus, in this situation, the data has intrinsic dimension equal to the ambient dimension. Interestingly, we are still able to show that the rates only depend on the dimension of the manifold and not the dimension of the entire data.
Let and . Suppose that distribution is a weighted mixture where is a distribution with continous density supported on a -dimensional manifold satisfying Assumption 2 and is a (noise) distribution with continuous density with compact support over with . Suppose also that there exists such that for all and (where ) satisfies Assumption 1 for density . Let be the output of Algorithm 1 on a sample of size drawn i.i.d. from . Then, there exists constants depending on , , , and such that the following holds with probability at least . Suppose that satisfies , where . Then we have
The above result is attractive because it begins to show why our methods can work, even in high-dimensions, despite the curse of dimensionality of non-parametric methods. In typical real-world data, even if the data lies in a high-dimensional space, there may be far fewer degrees of freedom. Thus, our theoretical results suggest that if this is true, then our methods will enjoy far better convergence rates – even when the data overall has full intrinsic dimension due to factors such as noise.
4.4 Analysis of Algorithm 2: the Trust Score
We now provide a guarantee about the trust score, making the same assumptions as in Theorem 3 for each of the label distributions. We additionally assume that the class distributions are well-behaved in the following sense: that high-density-regions for each of the classes satisfy the property that for any point , if the ratio of the distance to one class’s high-density-region to that of another is smaller by some margin , then it is more likely that ’s label corresponds to the former class.
Let . Let us have labeled data drawn from distribution , which is a joint distribution over where are the labels, , and is compact. Suppose for each , the conditional distribution for label which satisfies the conditions of Theorem 3 for some manifold and noise level . Let be the density of the portion of the conditional distribution supported on . Define , where and let be the maximum Hausdorff error from estimating over each in Theorem 3. Assume that to ensure we have sufficient samples from each label.
Suppose also that for each , if then for . That is, if we are closer to than by a ratio of less than , then the point is more likely to be from class . Let be the Bayes-optimal classifier, defined by . Then, the trust score of Algorithm 2, satisfies the following with high probability uniformly in and classifiers for sufficiently large depending on .
In this section, we show empirically that trust scores can both detect examples that are incorrectly classified with high precision and be used as a signal to determine which examples are likely correct. We perform this evaluation across (i) different datasets (Section 5.1) (ii) different families of classifiers (neural network, random forest and logistic regression) (Section 5.1) (iii) different tunings of the classifier (Section 5.2) and (iv) different representations of the data e.g. input data or activations of various intermediate layers in a neural network (Section 5.3).
To evaluate the effectiveness of trust scores and baselines we use the following process. Each method produces a numeric score for each testing example. For each method, we bin the data points by percentile value of the score (i.e. 100 bins). Then, given a recall percentile level (i.e. the -axis on our plots), we take the performance of the classifier on the bins above the percentile level as the precision (i.e. the -axis). For identifying suspicious examples, the precision is the misclassification rate and for identifying trustworthy examples, we take the negative of each method’s score and use the accuracy of the classifier. In any case, the higher the precision vs percentile curve, the better the method.
Baselines used: The first baseline we use is the model’s own confidence score, which is similar to the approach of Hendrycks and Gimpel (2016). While calibrating the classifiers’ confidence scores (i.e. transforming them into probability estimates of correctness) is an important related work Guo et al. (2017); Platt et al. (1999), such techniques typically do not change the rankings of the score, at least in the binary case. Since we evaluate the trust score on its precision at a given recall percentile level, we are interested in the relative ranking of the scores rather than their absolute values. Thus, we do not compare against calibration techniques. There are surprisingly few methods aimed at identifying correctly or incorrectly classified examples with precision at a recall percentile level as noted in Hendrycks and Gimpel (2016).
We give two additional types of baselines: distance baselines and model baselines. The distance baselines use the distances between the testing example and -high-density-sets for each class. We use two distance baselines: (i) the nearest neighbor ratio (1-nn ratio), which is the distance ratio between the closest and second closest -high-density-set, which can be viewed as an analogue to the trust score without knowledge of the classifier; and (ii) the nearest neighbor softmax (1-nn), which is the distance between testing example and the closest -high-density-set, normalized by the sum of distances to all other classes. The model baselines involve training a separate neural network to predict whether the classifier will misclassify the example. We have four such model baselines: three of them are neural network classifiers that takes some combination of the feature vectors and the classifier’s confidence, and output a prediction of whether the classifier is misclassifying. The last model baseline is a regression NN model that takes feature vectors and the classifier’s confidence to predict if the classifier is misclassifying.
Choosing Hyperparameters: The two hyperparameters for the trust score are and . Throughout the experiments, we fix and choose using cross-validation over (negative) powers of . The bulk of the computational cost for the trust-score is in -nearest neighbor computations for training and -nearest neighbor searches for evaluation. To speed things up for the high-dimensional datasets MNIST and ImageNet, we reduced the data down to dimensions using PCA before being processed by the trust score. Interestingly, even with this reduction, the trust score maintains high performance. We note that any approximation method (such as approximate instead of exact nearest neighbors) could have been used instead.
5.1 Performance Across Various Datasets and Models
In this section, we show performance on five benchmark UCI datasets Friedman et al. (2001) and the Phonemes dataset of Dheeru and Karra Taniskidou (2017), each for three kinds of classifiers (neural network, random forest and logistic regression). Due to space, we only show two data sets and two models in Figure 1. The rest can be found in the Appendix. For each method and dataset, we evaluated with multiple runs. For each run we took a random stratified split of the dataset into two halves. One half was used for training the trust score and the other half was used for evaluation and the standard error is shown in addition to the average precision across the runs at each percentile level. The results show that our method consistently has a higher precision vs percentile curve than the rest of the methods across the datasets and models. This suggests the trust score considerably improves upon known methods as a signal for identifying trustworthy and suspicious testing examples.
5.2 Performance Over Different Model Training Hyperparameters
In this section, we train a neural network on the MNIST dataset LeCun (1998) for a fixed model architecture, and vary the batch size and learning rate. As a consequence, the performance of the classifier will also vary. Four models with varying accuracy (vertical dotted black line) are shown in Figure 2. The results show that as the classifier’s accuracy increases, it becomes harder to detect suspicious examples. However, it was not easier to detect which examples are trustworthy for the more accurate classifiers. Throughout, the trust score consistently outperforms the baselines (only a few examples are shown in Figure 2; a full analysis is in the Appendix).
5.3 Evaluating the Trust Score on Neural Network Intermediate Layers
One simple generalization of our method is to use intermediate layers of a neural network as an input instead of the raw . Prior work (e.g., Zeiler and Fergus (2014)) suggests that a neural network seems to learn useful but different representations of at each layer. For this experiment, we use the ImageNet dataset with Inceptionv3 model, which contains intermediate layers, thus offering a variety of representations. Figure 4 shows that in general, our method has better performance with deeper layers (closer to logit) than with lower layers. This observation may be explained by many prior work which showed that lower layers learn lower level features, such as edges in the image, which then are combined to conduct higher level reasoning in deeper layers. It is plausible that higher level reasoning is better and necessary for predicting trustworthiness. We include baseline results for InceptionV3 in Figure 3 and the experiment details in Appendix. Note that baseline models are out of range in the figure. See the Appendix for the full chart.
In this paper, we provide the trust score: a new, simple, and effective way to judge if one should trust the prediction from a classifier. We show high-probability non-asymptotic statistical guarantees that high (low) trust scores correspond to agreement (disagreement) with the Bayes-optimal classifier under various nonparametric settings, which build on recent results in topological data analysis. Our empirical results across many datasets, classifiers, and representations of the data show that our method consistently outperforms the classifier’s own reported confidence as well as many baselines in identifying trustworthy and suspicious examples. The theoretical and empirical results suggest that this approach may have significant practical implications.
- Balakrishnan et al. (2013) Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Srivatsan Narayanan, Alessandro Rinaldo, Aarti Singh, and Larry Wasserman. Cluster trees on manifolds. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2679–2687, 2013.
- Bartlett and Wegkamp (2008) Peter L Bartlett and Marten H Wegkamp. Classification with a reject option using a hinge loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(Aug):1823–1840, 2008.
- Chaudhuri and Dasgupta (2010) Kamalika Chaudhuri and Sanjoy Dasgupta. Rates of convergence for the cluster tree. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 343–351, 2010.
- Chazal (2013) Frédéric Chazal. An upper bound for the volume of geodesic balls in submanifolds of euclidean spaces. Personal Communication, available at http://geometrica. saclay. inria. fr/team/Fred. Chazal/BallVolumeJan2013. pdf, 2013.
- Chow (1970) C Chow. On optimum recognition error and reject tradeoff. IEEE Transactions on information theory, 16(1):41–46, 1970.
- Cortes et al. (2016a) Corinna Cortes, Giulia DeSalvo, and Mehryar Mohri. Boosting with abstention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1660–1668, 2016a.
- Cortes et al. (2016b) Corinna Cortes, Giulia DeSalvo, and Mehryar Mohri. Learning with rejection. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages 67–82. Springer, 2016b.
- Cortes et al. (2017) Corinna Cortes, Giulia DeSalvo, Claudio Gentile, Mehryar Mohri, and Scott Yang. Online learning with abstention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03478, 2017.
- Dasgupta and Kpotufe (2014) Sanjoy Dasgupta and Samory Kpotufe. Optimal rates for k-NN density and mode estimation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2555–2563, 2014.
- Deng et al. (2009) J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR, 2009.
- Dheeru and Karra Taniskidou (2017) Dua Dheeru and Efi Karra Taniskidou. UCI machine learning repository. 2017. URL http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml.
- Dubuisson and Masson (1993) Bernard Dubuisson and Mylene Masson. A statistical decision rule with incomplete knowledge about classes. Pattern recognition, 26(1):155–165, 1993.
- El-Yaniv and Wiener (2010) Ran El-Yaniv and Yair Wiener. On the foundations of noise-free selective classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(May):1605–1641, 2010.
- Ester et al. (1996) Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Jörg Sander, Xiaowei Xu, et al. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Kdd, pages 226–231, 1996.
- Fan et al. (2002) Wei Fan, Fang Chu, Haixun Wang, and Philip S. Yu. Pruning and dynamic scheduling of cost-sensitive ensembles. AAAI, 2002.
- Friedman et al. (2001) Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The elements of statistical learning. 1, 2001.
- Fumera and Roli (2002) Giorgio Fumera and Fabio Roli. Support vector machines with embedded reject option. In Pattern recognition with support vector machines, pages 68–82. Springer, 2002.
- Fumera et al. (2000) Giorgio Fumera, Fabio Roli, and Giorgio Giacinto. Multiple reject thresholds for improving classification reliability. In Joint IAPR International Workshops on Statistical Techniques in Pattern Recognition (SPR) and Structural and Syntactic Pattern Recognition (SSPR), pages 863–871. Springer, 2000.
- Gal and Ghahramani (2016) Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1050–1059, 2016.
- Genovese et al. (2012) Christopher Genovese, Marco Perone-Pacifico, Isabella Verdinelli, and Larry Wasserman. Minimax manifold estimation. Journal of machine learning research, 13(May):1263–1291, 2012.
- Goodfellow et al. (2014) Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572, 2014.
- Grandvalet et al. (2009) Yves Grandvalet, Alain Rakotomamonjy, Joseph Keshet, and Stéphane Canu. Support vector machines with a reject option. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 537–544, 2009.
- Guo et al. (2017) Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.04599, 2017.
- Hartigan (1975) John A Hartigan. Clustering algorithms. 1975.
- Hendrycks and Gimpel (2016) Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136, 2016.
- Herbei and Wegkamp (2006) Radu Herbei and Marten H Wegkamp. Classification with reject option. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 34(4):709–721, 2006.
- Jiang (2017a) Heinrich Jiang. Density level set estimation on manifolds with DBSCAN. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1684–1693, 2017a.
- Jiang (2017b) Heinrich Jiang. Uniform convergence rates for kernel density estimation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1694–1703, 2017b.
- Kendall and Gal (2017) Alex Kendall and Yarin Gal. What uncertainties do we need in Bayesian deep learning for computer vision? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5580–5590, 2017.
- Kuleshov and Liang (2015) Volodymyr Kuleshov and Percy S Liang. Calibrated structured prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3474–3482, 2015.
- Lakshminarayanan et al. (2017) Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 6405–6416, 2017.
- Landgrebe et al. (2006) Thomas CW Landgrebe, David MJ Tax, Pavel Paclík, and Robert PW Duin. The interaction between classification and reject performance for distance-based reject-option classifiers. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8):908–917, 2006.
- LeCun (1998) Yann LeCun. The mnist database of handwritten digits. http://yann. lecun. com/exdb/mnist/, 1998.
- Nguyen et al. (2015) Anh Nguyen, Jason Yosinski, and Jeff Clune. Deep neural networks are easily fooled: High confidence predictions for unrecognizable images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 427–436, 2015.
- Niculescu-Mizil and Caruana (2005) Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, pages 625–632. ACM, 2005.
- Niyogi et al. (2008) Partha Niyogi, Stephen Smale, and Shmuel Weinberger. Finding the homology of submanifolds with high confidence from random samples. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 39(1-3):419–441, 2008.
- Parrish et al. (2013) Nathan Parrish, Hyrum S. Anderson, Maya R. Gupta, and Dun Yu Hsaio. Classifying with confidence from incomplete information. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(December):3561–3589, 2013.
- Platt et al. (1999) John Platt et al. Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Advances in large margin classifiers, 10(3):61–74, 1999.
- Provost et al. (1998) Foster J Provost, Tom Fawcett, and Ron Kohavi. The case against accuracy estimation for comparing induction algorithms. In ICML, volume 98, pages 445–453, 1998.
- Rigollet et al. (2009) Philippe Rigollet, Régis Vert, et al. Optimal rates for plug-in estimators of density level sets. Bernoulli, 15(4):1154–1178, 2009.
- Rinaldo and Wasserman (2010) Alessandro Rinaldo and Larry Wasserman. Generalized density clustering. The Annals of Statistics, 38(5):2678–2722, 2010.
- Santos-Pereira and Pires (2005) Carla M Santos-Pereira and Ana M Pires. On optimal reject rules and roc curves. Pattern recognition letters, 26(7):943–952, 2005.
- Singh et al. (2009) Aarti Singh, Clayton Scott, Robert Nowak, et al. Adaptive Hausdorff estimation of density level sets. The Annals of Statistics, 37(5B):2760–2782, 2009.
- Srivastava et al. (2014) Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014.
- Szegedy et al. (2016) Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2818–2826, 2016.
- Tax and Duin (2008) David MJ Tax and Robert PW Duin. Growing a multi-class classifier with a reject option. Pattern Recognition Letters, 29(10):1565–1570, 2008.
- Tortorella (2000) Francesco Tortorella. An optimal reject rule for binary classifiers. In Joint IAPR International Workshops on Statistical Techniques in Pattern Recognition (SPR) and Structural and Syntactic Pattern Recognition (SSPR), pages 611–620. Springer, 2000.
- Tsybakov et al. (1997) Alexandre B Tsybakov et al. On nonparametric estimation of density level sets. The Annals of Statistics, 25(3):948–969, 1997.
- Wang et al. (2015) Joseph Wang, Kirill Trapeznikov, and Venkatesh Saligrama. Efficient learning by directed acyclic graph for resource constrained prediction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2015.
- Wiener and El-Yaniv (2011) Yair Wiener and Ran El-Yaniv. Agnostic selective classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1665–1673, 2011.
- Yuan and Wegkamp (2010) Ming Yuan and Marten Wegkamp. Classification methods with reject option based on convex risk minimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11(Jan):111–130, 2010.
- Zadrozny and Elkan (2002) Bianca Zadrozny and Charles Elkan. Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 694–699. ACM, 2002.
- Zeiler and Fergus (2014) Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In European conference on computer vision, pages 818–833. Springer, 2014.
Appendix A Supporting results for Theorem 1 Proof
We need the following result giving guarantees on the empirical balls.
Lemma 1 (Uniform convergence of balls (Chaudhuri and Dasgupta, 2010)).
Let be the distribution corresponding to and be the empirical distribution corresponding to the sample . Pick . Assume that . Then with probability at least , for every ball we have
For the rest of the paper, many results are qualified to hold with probability at least . This often precisely the event in which Lemma 1 holds.
If , then .
To analyze Algorithm 1, we need the following bounds on -NN density estimation.
Define the -NN radius of as
Definition 4 (k-NN Density Estimator).
where is the volume of a unit ball in .
We can utilize such bounds from Dasgupta and Kpotufe (2014), which are repeated here.
Define the following one-sided modulus of continuity which characterizes how much the density increases locally:
Lemma 2 (Lemma 3 of Dasgupta and Kpotufe (2014)).
Suppose that . Then with probability at least , the following holds for all and .
provided satisfies .
Analogously, define the following which characterizes how much the density decreases locally.
Lemma 3 (Lemma 4 of Dasgupta and Kpotufe (2014)).
Suppose that . Then with probability at least , the following holds for all and .
provided satisfies .
Appendix B Proof of Theorem 1
It will be understood that in this section, we assume the conditions of Theorem 1. We first show that , that is the density level corresponding to the -high-density-set is smooth in .
There exists a constants depending on such that the following holds for all such that
We have by definition that
Choosing sufficiently small such that Assumption 1 holds, we have
where the last inequality holds for some constant depending on and Vol is the volume w.r.t. to the Lebesgue measure in . It then follows that
and the result for the first part follows by taking and . Showing that can be done analogously and is omitted here. ∎
The next result gets a handle on the density level corresponding to returned by Algorithm 1.
Let . Let be the setting chosen by Algorithm 1. Define
Then, with probability at least , we have there exist constant depending on such that for sufficiently large depending on , we have
Let . Then, we have that if , then . Thus, the probability that a sample point falls in is a Bernoulli random variable with probability . Hence, by Hoeffding’s inequality, we have that there exist constant such that
Then it follows that choosing we get
Similarly, choosing gives us
where will be chosen later in order for . By Lemma 4, there exists depending on such that for (which holds for sufficiently large depending on by Lemma 1), we have . As such, it suffices to choose such that for all such that if then . This is because would contain , which we showed earlier contains at least fraction of the samples. Define such that We have by Assumption 1,
Then, there exists constant sufficiently large depending on such that if
then the conditions in Lemma 3 are satisfied for sufficiently large. Thus, we have for all with , then . Hence, .
We now do the same in the other direction. Define
where will be chosen such that . By Lemma 4, it suffices to show that if then . This direction follows a similar argument as the previous.
Thus, there exists a constant depending on such that for sufficiently large depending on , we have:
as desired. ∎
The next result bounds between two level sets of .
Let . There exists constant depending on such that the following holds with probability at least for sufficiently large depending on . Define
To simplify notation, let us define the following:
By Lemma 5, there exists such that defining
then we have
It suffices to show that there exists a constant such that
We start by showing . To do this, show that for any satisfying satisfies , where will be chosen later. By a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma 5, we can choose for some constant and the desired result holds for sufficiently large. Similarly, there exists such that implies that . The result follows by taking . ∎
Proof of Theorem 5.
Again, to simplify notation, let us define the following:
There are two directions to show for Hausdorff distance result. That (1) is bounded, that is none of the high-density points recovered by Algorithm 1 are far from the true high-density region; and (2) that is bounded, that Algorithm 1 recovers a good covering of the entire high-density region.
We first show (1). By Lemma 6, we have that there exist such that
contains . Thus,
where the second inequality holds by Assumption 1. Now for the other direction, we have by Triangle inequality that
The first term can be bounded by using Assumption 1.
Now for the second term, we see that by Lemma 6, contains all of the sample points of . Thus, we have
which is dominated by the error contributed by the other error and the result follows. ∎
Appendix C Supporting results for Theorem 2 Proof
In this section, we note that we will reuse some notation from the last section for the manifold case.
Lemma 7 (Manifold Version of Uniform convergence of empirical Euclidean balls (Lemma 7 of Balakrishnan et al. (2013))).
Let be the true distribution and be the empirical distribution w.r.t. sample . Let be a minimal fixed set such that each point in is at most distance from some point in . There exists a universal constant such that the following holds with probability at least . For all ,
where , is the empirical distribution, and .
Definition 5 (k-NN Density Estimator on Manifold).
Lemma 8 (Manifold version of upper bound Jiang (2017a)).
Define the following which charaterizes how much the density increases locally in :
Fix and and suppose that . Then there exists constant such that if
then the following holds with probability at least uniformly in and with :