Showing 1–5 of 5 results for author: Johnson, K D

Disease Momentum: Estimating the Reproduction Number in the Presence of Superspreading

Authors: Kory D. Johnson, Mathias Beiglböck, Manuel Eder, Annemarie Grass, Joachim Hermisson, Gudmund Pammer, Jitka Polechová, Daniel Toneian, Benjamin Wölfl

Abstract: A primary quantity of interest in the study of infectious diseases is the average number of new infections that an infected person produces. This so-called reproduction number has significant implications for the disease progression. There has been increasing literature suggesting that superspreading, the significant variability in number of new infections caused by individuals, plays an important… ▽ More A primary quantity of interest in the study of infectious diseases is the average number of new infections that an infected person produces. This so-called reproduction number has significant implications for the disease progression. There has been increasing literature suggesting that superspreading, the significant variability in number of new infections caused by individuals, plays an important role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. In this paper, we consider the effect that such superspreading has on the estimation of the reproduction number and subsequent estimates of future cases. Accordingly, we employ a simple extension to models currently used in the literature to estimate the reproduction number and present a case-study of the progression of COVID-19 in Austria. Our models demonstrate that the estimation uncertainty of the reproduction number increases with superspreading and that this improves the performance of prediction intervals. Of independent interest is the derivation of a transparent formula that connects the extent of superspreading to the width of credible intervals for the reproduction number. This serves as a valuable heuristic for understanding the uncertainty surrounding diseases with superspreading. △ Less

Submitted 15 March, 2021; v1 submitted 16 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Adaptive, Distribution-Free Prediction Intervals for Deep Networks

Authors: Danijel Kivaranovic, Kory D. Johnson, Hannes Leeb

Abstract: The machine learning literature contains several constructions for prediction intervals that are intuitively reasonable but ultimately ad-hoc in that they do not come with provable performance guarantees. We present methods from the statistics literature that can be used efficiently with neural networks under minimal assumptions with guaranteed performance. We propose a neural network that outputs… ▽ More The machine learning literature contains several constructions for prediction intervals that are intuitively reasonable but ultimately ad-hoc in that they do not come with provable performance guarantees. We present methods from the statistics literature that can be used efficiently with neural networks under minimal assumptions with guaranteed performance. We propose a neural network that outputs three values instead of a single point estimate and optimizes a loss function motivated by the standard quantile regression loss. We provide two prediction interval methods with finite sample coverage guarantees solely under the assumption that the observations are independent and identically distributed. The first method leverages the conformal inference framework and provides average coverage. The second method provides a new, stronger guarantee by conditioning on the observed data. Lastly, our loss function does not compromise the predictive accuracy of the network like other prediction interval methods. We demonstrate the ease of use of our procedures as well as its improvements over other methods on both simulated and real data. As most deep networks can easily be modified by our method to output predictions with valid prediction intervals, its use should become standard practice, much like reporting standard errors along with mean estimates. △ Less

Submitted 24 February, 2020; v1 submitted 25 May, 2019; originally announced May 2019.

Impartial Predictive Modeling and the Use of Proxy Variables

Authors: Kory D. Johnson, Dean P. Foster, Robert A. Stine

Abstract: Fairness aware data mining (FADM) aims to prevent algorithms from discriminating against protected groups. The literature has come to an impasse as to what constitutes explainable variability as opposed to discrimination. This distinction hinges on a rigorous understanding of the role of proxy variables; i.e., those variables which are associated both the protected feature and the outcome of inter… ▽ More Fairness aware data mining (FADM) aims to prevent algorithms from discriminating against protected groups. The literature has come to an impasse as to what constitutes explainable variability as opposed to discrimination. This distinction hinges on a rigorous understanding of the role of proxy variables; i.e., those variables which are associated both the protected feature and the outcome of interest. We demonstrate that fairness is achieved by ensuring impartiality with respect to sensitive characteristics and provide a framework for impartiality by accounting for different perspectives on the data generating process. In particular, fairness can only be precisely defined in a full-data scenario in which all covariates are observed. We then analyze how these models may be conservatively estimated via regression in partial-data settings. Decomposing the regression estimates provides insights into previously unexplored distinctions between explainable variability and discrimination that illuminate the use of proxy variables in fairness aware data mining. △ Less

Submitted 7 January, 2022; v1 submitted 1 August, 2016; originally announced August 2016.

Fitting High-Dimensional Interaction Models with Error Control

Authors: Kory D. Johnson, Robert A. Stine, Dean P. Foster

Abstract: There is a renewed interest in polynomial regression in the form of identifying influential interactions between features. In many settings, this takes place in a high-dimensional model, making the number of interactions unwieldy or computationally infeasible. Furthermore, it is difficult to analyze such spaces directly as they are often highly correlated. Standard feature selection issues remain… ▽ More There is a renewed interest in polynomial regression in the form of identifying influential interactions between features. In many settings, this takes place in a high-dimensional model, making the number of interactions unwieldy or computationally infeasible. Furthermore, it is difficult to analyze such spaces directly as they are often highly correlated. Standard feature selection issues remain such as how to determine a final model which generalizes well. This paper solves these problems with a sequential algorithm called Revisiting Alpha-Investing (RAI). RAI is motivated by the principle of marginality and searches the feature-space of higher-order interactions by greedily building upon lower-order terms. RAI controls a notion of false rejections and comes with a performance guarantee relative to the best-subset model. This ensures that signal is identified while providing a valid stopping criterion to prevent over-selection. We apply RAI in a novel setting over a family of regressions in order to select gene-specific interaction models for differential expression profiling. △ Less

Submitted 18 February, 2020; v1 submitted 21 October, 2015; originally announced October 2015.

A Risk Ratio Comparison of $l_0$ and $l_1$ Penalized Regression

Authors: Kory D. Johnson, Dongyu Lin, Lyle H. Ungar, Dean P. Foster, Robert A. Stine

Abstract: There has been an explosion of interest in using $l_1$-regularization in place of $l_0$-regularization for feature selection. We present theoretical results showing that while $l_1$-penalized linear regression never outperforms $l_0$-regularization by more than a constant factor, in some cases using an $l_1$ penalty is infinitely worse than using an $l_0$ penalty. We also show that the "optimal"… ▽ More There has been an explosion of interest in using $l_1$-regularization in place of $l_0$-regularization for feature selection. We present theoretical results showing that while $l_1$-penalized linear regression never outperforms $l_0$-regularization by more than a constant factor, in some cases using an $l_1$ penalty is infinitely worse than using an $l_0$ penalty. We also show that the "optimal" $l_1$ solutions are often inferior to $l_0$ solutions found using stepwise regression. We also compare algorithms for solving these two problems and show that although solutions can be found efficiently for the $l_1$ problem, the "optimal" $l_1$ solutions are often inferior to $l_0$ solutions found using greedy classic stepwise regression. Furthermore, we show that solutions obtained by solving the convex $l_1$ problem can be improved by selecting the best of the $l_1$ models (for different regularization penalties) by using an $l_0$ criterion. In other words, an approximate solution to the right problem can be better than the exact solution to the wrong problem. △ Less

Submitted 21 October, 2015; originally announced October 2015.