Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Adversarial Learning for Feature Shift Detection and Correction

Published 7 Dec 2023 in cs.LG, cs.AI, stat.AP, and stat.ML | (2312.04546v1)

Abstract: Data shift is a phenomenon present in many real-world applications, and while there are multiple methods attempting to detect shifts, the task of localizing and correcting the features originating such shifts has not been studied in depth. Feature shifts can occur in many datasets, including in multi-sensor data, where some sensors are malfunctioning, or in tabular and structured data, including biomedical, financial, and survey data, where faulty standardization and data processing pipelines can lead to erroneous features. In this work, we explore using the principles of adversarial learning, where the information from several discriminators trained to distinguish between two distributions is used to both detect the corrupted features and fix them in order to remove the distribution shift between datasets. We show that mainstream supervised classifiers, such as random forest or gradient boosting trees, combined with simple iterative heuristics, can localize and correct feature shifts, outperforming current statistical and neural network-based techniques. The code is available at https://github.com/AI-sandbox/DataFix.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (105)
  1. J. Qian, Z. Song, Y. Yao, Z. Zhu, and X. Zhang, “A review on autoencoder based representation learning for fault detection and diagnosis in industrial processes,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, p. 104711, 2022.
  2. T. Dai, H. Hu, Y. Wan, Q. Chen, and Y. Wang, “A data quality management and control framework and model for health decision support,” in 2015 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD), pp. 1792–1796, 2015.
  3. K. A. Barchard and L. A. Pace, “Preventing human error: The impact of data entry methods on data accuracy and statistical results,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1834–1839, 2011.
  4. S. B. Lim, S. J. Tan, W.-T. Lim, and C. T. Lim, “A merged lung cancer transcriptome dataset for clinical predictive modeling,” Scientific data, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018.
  5. B. L. Browning and S. R. Browning, “Genotype imputation with millions of reference samples,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 116–126, 2016.
  6. T. Enamorado, B. Fifield, and K. Imai, “Using a probabilistic model to assist merging of large-scale administrative records,” American Political Science Review, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 353–371, 2019.
  7. J. Pan, V. Pham, M. Dorairaj, H. Chen, and J.-Y. Lee, “Adversarial validation approach to concept drift problem in user targeting automation systems at uber,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03045, 2020.
  8. S. Yu, X. Wang, and J. C. Príncipe, “Request-and-reverify: Hierarchical hypothesis testing for concept drift detection with expensive labels,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.10131, 2018.
  9. S. Kulinski, S. Bagchi, and D. I. Inouye, “Feature shift detection: Localizing which features have shifted via conditional distribution tests,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 19523–19533, 2020.
  10. S. Van Buuren and K. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, “mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in r,” Journal of statistical software, vol. 45, pp. 1–67, 2011.
  11. D. J. Stekhoven and P. Bühlmann, “Missforest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 112–118, 2012.
  12. Z. Zhou, Z. Gong, P. Ravikumar, and D. I. Inouye, “Iterative alignment flows,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 6409–6444, PMLR, 2022.
  13. D. Inouye and P. Ravikumar, “Deep density destructors,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2167–2175, PMLR, 2018.
  14. L. Piano, F. Garcea, V. Gatteschi, F. Lamberti, and L. Morra, “Detecting drift in deep learning: A methodology primer,” IT Professional, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 53–60, 2022.
  15. V. Subasri, A. Krishnan, A. Dhalla, D. Pandya, D. Malkin, F. Razak, A. Verma, A. Goldenberg, and E. Dolatabadi, “Diagnosing and remediating harmful data shifts for the responsible deployment of clinical ai models,” medRxiv, pp. 2023–03, 2023.
  16. T. Ginart, M. J. Zhang, and J. Zou, “Mldemon: Deployment monitoring for machine learning systems,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 3962–3997, PMLR, 2022.
  17. D. Zha, Z. P. Bhat, K.-H. Lai, F. Yang, Z. Jiang, S. Zhong, and X. Hu, “Data-centric artificial intelligence: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10158, 2023.
  18. J. Gama, I. Žliobaitė, A. Bifet, M. Pechenizkiy, and A. Bouchachia, “A survey on concept drift adaptation,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1–37, 2014.
  19. J. Lu, A. Liu, F. Dong, F. Gu, J. Gama, and G. Zhang, “Learning under concept drift: A review,” IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2346–2363, 2018.
  20. S. Rabanser, S. Günnemann, and Z. Lipton, “Failing loudly: An empirical study of methods for detecting dataset shift,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019.
  21. A. Liu, J. Lu, and G. Zhang, “Diverse instance-weighting ensemble based on region drift disagreement for concept drift adaptation,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 293–307, 2020.
  22. V. Losing, B. Hammer, and H. Wersing, “Knn classifier with self adjusting memory for heterogeneous concept drift,” in 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on data mining (ICDM), pp. 291–300, IEEE, 2016.
  23. N. Lu, J. Lu, G. Zhang, and R. L. De Mantaras, “A concept drift-tolerant case-base editing technique,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 230, pp. 108–133, 2016.
  24. A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, and A. Smola, “A kernel two-sample test,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 723–773, 2012.
  25. J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman, “Multiple significance tests: the bonferroni method,” Bmj, vol. 310, no. 6973, p. 170, 1995.
  26. I. M. Nasir, M. A. Khan, M. Yasmin, J. H. Shah, M. Gabryel, R. Scherer, and R. Damaševičius, “Pearson correlation-based feature selection for document classification using balanced training,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 23, p. 6793, 2020.
  27. K. Hopf and S. Reifenrath, “Filter methods for feature selection in supervised machine learning applications–review and benchmark,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12140, 2021.
  28. S. Maldonado and R. Weber, “A wrapper method for feature selection using support vector machines,” Information Sciences, vol. 179, no. 13, pp. 2208–2217, 2009.
  29. A. Mustaqeem, S. M. Anwar, M. Majid, and A. R. Khan, “Wrapper method for feature selection to classify cardiac arrhythmia,” in 2017 39th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 3656–3659, IEEE, 2017.
  30. X. Huang, L. Zhang, B. Wang, F. Li, and Z. Zhang, “Feature clustering based support vector machine recursive feature elimination for gene selection,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 594–607, 2018.
  31. B. Tran, M. Zhang, and B. Xue, “A pso based hybrid feature selection algorithm for high-dimensional classification,” in 2016 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), pp. 3801–3808, IEEE, 2016.
  32. R. Battiti, “Using mutual information for selecting features in supervised neural net learning,” IEEE Transactions on neural networks, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 537–550, 1994.
  33. N. O. F. Elssied, O. Ibrahim, and A. H. Osman, “A novel feature selection based on one-way anova f-test for e-mail spam classification,” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 625–638, 2014.
  34. S. Bahassine, A. Madani, M. Al-Sarem, and M. Kissi, “Feature selection using an improved chi-square for arabic text classification,” Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 225–231, 2020.
  35. C. Ding and H. Peng, “Minimum redundancy feature selection from microarray gene expression data,” Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology, vol. 3, no. 02, pp. 185–205, 2005.
  36. J. Li, K. Cheng, S. Wang, F. Morstatter, R. P. Trevino, J. Tang, and H. Liu, “Feature selection: A data perspective,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 50, no. 6, p. 94, 2018.
  37. F. Fleuret, “Fast binary feature selection with conditional mutual information.,” Journal of Machine learning research, vol. 5, no. 9, 2004.
  38. Q. Cheng, P. K. Varshney, and M. K. Arora, “Logistic regression for feature selection and soft classification of remote sensing data,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 491–494, 2006.
  39. E. V. Sylvester, P. Bentzen, I. R. Bradbury, M. Clément, J. Pearce, J. Horne, and R. G. Beiko, “Applications of random forest feature selection for fine-scale genetic population assignment,” Evolutionary applications, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 153–165, 2018.
  40. A. Bommert, X. Sun, B. Bischl, J. Rahnenführer, and M. Lang, “Benchmark for filter methods for feature selection in high-dimensional classification data,” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 143, p. 106839, 2020.
  41. R. R. Andridge and R. J. Little, “A review of hot deck imputation for survey non-response,” International statistical review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 40–64, 2010.
  42. R. Mazumder, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, “Spectral regularization algorithms for learning large incomplete matrices,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 11, pp. 2287–2322, 2010.
  43. T. Hastie, R. Mazumder, J. D. Lee, and R. Zadeh, “Matrix completion and low-rank svd via fast alternating least squares,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3367–3402, 2015.
  44. P. J. García-Laencina, J.-L. Sancho-Gómez, and A. R. Figueiras-Vidal, “Pattern classification with missing data: a review,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 263–282, 2010.
  45. P.-A. Mattei and J. Frellsen, “Miwae: Deep generative modelling and imputation of incomplete data sets,” in International conference on machine learning, pp. 4413–4423, PMLR, 2019.
  46. T. Kyono, Y. Zhang, A. Bellot, and M. van der Schaar, “Miracle: Causally-aware imputation via learning missing data mechanisms,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 23806–23817, 2021.
  47. D. Jarrett, B. C. Cebere, T. Liu, A. Curth, and M. van der Schaar, “Hyperimpute: Generalized iterative imputation with automatic model selection,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 9916–9937, PMLR, 2022.
  48. B. Muzellec, J. Josse, C. Boyer, and M. Cuturi, “Missing data imputation using optimal transport,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 7130–7140, PMLR, 2020.
  49. J. Yoon, J. Jordon, and M. Schaar, “Gain: Missing data imputation using generative adversarial nets,” in International conference on machine learning, pp. 5689–5698, PMLR, 2018.
  50. A. Bogatu, A. A. Fernandes, N. W. Paton, and N. Konstantinou, “Dataset discovery in data lakes,” in 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 709–720, IEEE, 2020.
  51. O. Dekel, “Collecting high-quality labels from a crowd,” in Proc. 22nd Annual Conference on Learning Theory (COLT), 2009, 2009.
  52. B. Boecking, W. Neiswanger, E. Xing, and A. Dubrawski, “Interactive weak supervision: Learning useful heuristics for data labeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06046, 2020.
  53. N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,” Journal of artificial intelligence research, vol. 16, pp. 321–357, 2002.
  54. D. M. Montserrat, Q. Lin, J. Allebach, and E. J. Delp, “Training object detection and recognition cnn models using data augmentation,” Electronic Imaging, vol. 2017, no. 10, pp. 27–36, 2017.
  55. M. Geleta, D. Mas Montserrat, X. Giro-i Nieto, and A. G. Ioannidis, “Deep variational autoencoders for population genetics,” biorxiv, pp. 2023–09, 2023.
  56. M. Lenzerini, “Data integration: A theoretical perspective,” in Proceedings of the twenty-first ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems, pp. 233–246, 2002.
  57. S. Krishnan and E. A. Wu, “Automatic generation of data cleaning pipelines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.11827, 2019.
  58. Z. Zhang, “Missing data imputation: focusing on single imputation,” Annals of translational medicine, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016.
  59. A. O. Salau and S. Jain, “Feature extraction: a survey of the types, techniques, applications,” in 2019 international conference on signal processing and communication (ICSC), pp. 158–164, IEEE, 2019.
  60. P. J. M. Ali, R. H. Faraj, E. Koya, P. J. M. Ali, and R. H. Faraj, “Data normalization and standardization: a technical report,” Mach Learn Tech Rep, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2014.
  61. B. Azhagusundari, A. S. Thanamani, et al., “Feature selection based on information gain,” International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 18–21, 2013.
  62. J. C. Riquelme, J. S. Aguilar-Ruiz, and M. Toro, “Finding representative patterns with ordered projections,” pattern recognition, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1009–1018, 2003.
  63. M. Stonebraker, D. Bruckner, I. F. Ilyas, G. Beskales, M. Cherniack, S. B. Zdonik, A. Pagan, and S. Xu, “Data curation at scale: the data tamer system.,” in Cidr, vol. 2013, 2013.
  64. M. Stonebraker, I. F. Ilyas, et al., “Data integration: The current status and the way forward.,” IEEE Data Eng. Bull., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 3–9, 2018.
  65. K. Yan and D. Zhang, “Feature selection and analysis on correlated gas sensor data with recursive feature elimination,” Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, vol. 212, pp. 353–363, 2015.
  66. P. Xanthopoulos, P. M. Pardalos, T. B. Trafalis, P. Xanthopoulos, P. M. Pardalos, and T. B. Trafalis, “Linear discriminant analysis,” Robust data mining, pp. 27–33, 2013.
  67. X. Nguyen, M. J. Wainwright, and M. I. Jordan, “Estimating divergence functionals and the likelihood ratio by convex risk minimization,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 5847–5861, 2010.
  68. S. Nowozin, B. Cseke, and R. Tomioka, “f-gan: Training generative neural samplers using variational divergence minimization,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 29, 2016.
  69. G. Huang, H. Berard, A. Touati, G. Gidel, P. Vincent, and S. Lacoste-Julien, “Parametric adversarial divergences are good losses for generative modeling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.02511, 2017.
  70. J.-B. Hiriart-Urruty and C. Lemaréchal, Fundamentals of convex analysis. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
  71. M.-J. Zhao, N. Edakunni, A. Pocock, and G. Brown, “Beyond fano’s inequality: Bounds on the optimal f-score, ber, and cost-sensitive risk and their implications,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1033–1090, 2013.
  72. Cambridge university press, 2019.
  73. D. M. Montserrat and A. G. Ioannidis, “Adversarial attacks on genotype sequences,” in ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2023.
  74. P.-Y. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Sharma, J. Yi, and C.-J. Hsieh, “Zoo: Zeroth order optimization based black-box attacks to deep neural networks without training substitute models,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security, pp. 15–26, 2017.
  75. A. V. Dorogush, V. Ershov, and A. Gulin, “Catboost: gradient boosting with categorical features support,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.11363, 2018.
  76. R. Huerta, T. Mosqueiro, J. Fonollosa, N. F. Rulkov, and I. Rodriguez-Lujan, “Online decorrelation of humidity and temperature in chemical sensors for continuous monitoring,” Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, vol. 157, pp. 169–176, 2016.
  77. L. M. Candanedo, V. Feldheim, and D. Deramaix, “Data driven prediction models of energy use of appliances in a low-energy house,” Energy and buildings, vol. 140, pp. 81–97, 2017.
  78. C. Blake, “Uci repository of machine learning databases,” http://www. ics. uci. edu/~ mlearn/MLRepository. html, 1998.
  79. M. R. Boutell, J. Luo, X. Shen, and C. M. Brown, “Learning multi-label scene classification,” Pattern recognition, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1757–1771, 2004.
  80. L. Deng, “The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 141–142, 2012.
  81. J. Vanschoren, J. N. Van Rijn, B. Bischl, and L. Torgo, “Openml: networked science in machine learning,” ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 49–60, 2014.
  82. M. Perera, D. M. Montserrat, M. Barrabes, M. Geleta, X. Giró-i Nieto, and A. G. Ioannidis, “Generative moment matching networks for genotype simulation,” in 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 1379–1383, IEEE, 2022.
  83. C. Bycroft, C. Freeman, D. Petkova, G. Band, L. T. Elliott, K. Sharp, A. Motyer, D. Vukcevic, O. Delaneau, J. O’Connell, et al., “The uk biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data,” Nature, vol. 562, no. 7726, pp. 203–209, 2018.
  84. C. C. T. Force, “United states covid-19 cases and deaths by state over time,” 2022.
  85. S. Ghanem, H. Krim, H. S. Clouse, and W. Sakla, “Metric driven classification: A non-parametric approach based on the henze–penrose test statistic,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 5947–5956, 2018.
  86. S. Y. Sekeh, B. Oselio, and A. O. Hero, “A dimension-independent discriminant between distributions,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 4419–4423, IEEE, 2018.
  87. S. Y. Sekeh, M. Noshad, K. R. Moon, and A. O. Hero, “Convergence rates for empirical estimation of binary classification bounds,” Entropy, vol. 21, no. 12, p. 1144, 2019.
  88. Q. Wang, S. R. Kulkarni, and S. Verdú, “Divergence estimation for multidimensional densities via k𝑘kitalic_k-nearest-neighbor distances,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 2392–2405, 2009.
  89. S. Ben-David, J. Blitzer, K. Crammer, A. Kulesza, F. Pereira, and J. W. Vaughan, “A theory of learning from different domains,” Machine learning, vol. 79, pp. 151–175, 2010.
  90. H. Zhao, R. T. Des Combes, K. Zhang, and G. Gordon, “On learning invariant representations for domain adaptation,” in International conference on machine learning, pp. 7523–7532, PMLR, 2019.
  91. I. Albuquerque, J. Monteiro, M. Darvishi, T. H. Falk, and I. Mitliagkas, “Generalizing to unseen domains via distribution matching,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00804, 2019.
  92. Y. Ganin, E. Ustinova, H. Ajakan, P. Germain, H. Larochelle, F. Laviolette, M. Marchand, and V. Lempitsky, “Domain-adversarial training of neural networks,” The journal of machine learning research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 2096–2030, 2016.
  93. S. Omar, A. Ngadi, and H. H. Jebur, “Machine learning techniques for anomaly detection: an overview,” International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 79, no. 2, 2013.
  94. G. Pang, C. Shen, L. Cao, and A. V. D. Hengel, “Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1–38, 2021.
  95. G. Li and J. J. Jung, “Deep learning for anomaly detection in multivariate time series: Approaches, applications, and challenges,” Information Fusion, vol. 91, pp. 93–102, 2023.
  96. G. Pang, C. Shen, H. Jin, and A. van den Hengel, “Deep weakly-supervised anomaly detection,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1795–1807, 2023.
  97. S. C.-X. Li, B. Jiang, and B. Marlin, “Misgan: Learning from incomplete data with generative adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.09599, 2019.
  98. S. Yoon and S. Sull, “Gamin: Generative adversarial multiple imputation network for highly missing data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8456–8464, 2020.
  99. D. T. Neves, M. G. Naik, and A. Proença, “Sgain, wsgain-cp and wsgain-gp: Novel gan methods for missing data imputation,” in International Conference on Computational Science, pp. 98–113, Springer, 2021.
  100. Y. Wang, D. Li, X. Li, and M. Yang, “Pc-gain: Pseudo-label conditional generative adversarial imputation networks for incomplete data,” Neural Networks, vol. 141, pp. 395–403, 2021.
  101. Z. Dai, Z. Bu, and Q. Long, “Multiple imputation via generative adversarial network for high-dimensional blockwise missing value problems,” in 2021 20th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), pp. 791–798, IEEE, 2021.
  102. W. Wang, Y. Chai, and Y. Li, “Gagin: generative adversarial guider imputation network for missing data,” Neural Computing and Applications, pp. 1–14, 2022.
  103. J. Qian, Y. Tanigawa, W. Du, M. Aguirre, C. Chang, R. Tibshirani, M. A. Rivas, and T. Hastie, “A fast and scalable framework for large-scale and ultrahigh-dimensional sparse regression with application to the uk biobank,” PLoS genetics, vol. 16, no. 10, p. e1009141, 2020.
  104. W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, “Savitzky-golay smoothing filters,” Computers in Physics, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 669–672, 1990.
  105. V. Satopaa, J. Albrecht, D. Irwin, and B. Raghavan, “Finding a" kneedle" in a haystack: Detecting knee points in system behavior,” in 2011 31st international conference on distributed computing systems workshops, pp. 166–171, IEEE, 2011.

Summary

  • The paper introduces DataFix, a novel framework that leverages adversarial learning to both detect and correct feature shifts in datasets.
  • It employs DF-Locate to iteratively remove corrupted features by analyzing mutual information differences between training and deployment data.
  • Experimental results demonstrate that DataFix outperforms traditional methods, significantly reducing divergence metrics across diverse datasets.

An Analysis of Adversarial Learning for Feature Shift Detection and Correction

The research paper "Adversarial Learning for Feature Shift Detection and Correction" explores the specific challenge of identifying and remedying feature shifts in datasets using adversarial learning techniques. Distribution shifts, particularly in high-dimensional data, present significant hurdles in domains such as biomedical, financial, and multi-sensor environments where dataset integrity is crucial for reliable analytics and decision-making.

Research Context and Problem Definition

Data shift occurs when the joint distribution of features changes between the training and deployment phases, which can critically undermine predictive performance in machine learning models. Previous studies have concentrated on methods to detect such shifts. However, the precise identification of which features contribute to these shifts, termed feature shift localization, and their subsequent correction has received limited attention. The paper identifies the need for an effective means of localizing feature shifts, with particular emphasis on differentiating the non-corrupted (stable) features from the corrupted (shifted) ones within multi-sensor and tabular datasets.

Methodology: Adversarially-Informed Framework

The paper proposes a novel adversarially-informed framework, termed "DataFix," which contains two main components: DF-Locate for feature shift detection and DF-Correct for feature shift correction.

  • DF-Locate: This involves training discriminators to ascertain the distribution differences between two datasets. The method uses variations in mutual information between data and labels to identify corrupted features. By framing feature shift localization as a feature selection problem, DF-Locate combines information theory with adversarial learning, iteratively removing features until no significant divergence between distributions is observed.
  • DF-Correct: The correction process entails modifying the values of corrupted features to align more closely with their non-corrupted counterparts. This is achieved by leveraging supervised machine learning frameworks like regression and classification to predict corrected values, using model-based and optimization-based approaches. The process is designed to minimize empirical divergence measures with respect to non-shifted datasets.

Experimental Validation and Results

The framework is evaluated against multiple real-world and simulated datasets. These datasets vary from well-known UCI databases to specialized datasets containing genomic information and tabular socio-economic data. The experimental results showcase DataFix's superiority in localizing and correcting feature shifts compared to state-of-the-art methodologies, evidenced by higher accuracy in detecting corrupted features and significantly lowering divergence metrics after correction.

Key findings include:

  • DataFix outperforms traditional feature selection methods and competing techniques like GAN-based and statistical testing methods for both localization and correction tasks.
  • The iterative heuristic effectively identifies shifted features, even when faced with complex distribution changes.
  • DF-Correct successfully restores the integrity of the dataset, enhancing its utility for downstream applications like predictive modeling.

Implications and Future Directions

This paper provides a solid foundation for tackling distribution shifts through feature analysis and correction, opening pathways for further research and development in the area. Beyond its immediate application in data monitoring and quality control, the proposed methods offer promising implications for AI deployment in dynamic environments.

Future work will likely focus on enhancing the computational scalability of these methods, incorporating real-time responsiveness for operational systems, and exploring their applicability in unstructured data types like images and text. Research could also examine the integration of domain knowledge with machine learning-based shift detection to improve robustness across diverse domains.

Conclusion

"Adversarial Learning for Feature Shift Detection and Correction" successfully addresses a critical aspect of data integrity management in machine learning deployment. By framing the problem in an adversarial setting and utilizing feature selection principles, it advances the capability to maintain and restore dataset quality, enabling more reliable and accurate data-driven decision-making processes.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

GitHub

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 2 likes about this paper.