Do you need help determining which machine learning model is superior? This post presents a step-by-step guide using basic statistical techniques and a real case study! 🤖📈 #AIOrthoPraxy #MachineLearning #Statistics #DataScience

When employing Machine Learning to address problems, our choice of a model plays a crucial role. Evaluating models can be straightforward when performance disparities are substantial, for example, when comparing two large-language models (LLMS) on a masked language modeling (MLM) task with 71.01 and 28.56 perplexity, respectively. However, if differences among models are minute, making a solid analysis to discern if one model is genuinely superior to others can prove challenging.

This tutorial aims to present a step-by-step guide to determine if one model is superior to another. Our approach relies on basic statistical techniques and real datasets. Our study compares four models on six datasets using one metric, standard accuracy. Alternatively, other contexts may use different numbers of models, metrics, or datasets. We will work with the tables below that show the properties of the datasets and the performance of two baseline models and two of our proposed models, for which we hope to show that they are better, which would be our hypothesis to be tested.

One of the primary purposes of statistics is hypothesis testing. Statistical inference involves taking a sample from a population and determining how well the sample represents the population. In hypothesis testing, we formulate a null hypothesis, , and an alternative hypothesis, , based on the problem (comparing models). Both hypotheses must be concise, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive. For example, we could say that our null hypothesis is that the models perform equally, and the alternative could mean that the models perform differently.

Why is the ANOVA test not a good alternative?

The ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test is a parametric test that compares the means of multiple groups. In our case, we have four models to compare with six datasets. The null hypothesis for ANOVA is that all the means are equal, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the means is different. If the value of the ANOVA test is less than the significance level (usually 0.05), we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that at least one of the means is different, i.e., at least one model performs differently than the others. However, ANOVA may not always be the best choice for comparing the performance of different models.

One reason for this is that ANOVA assumes that the data follows a normal distribution, which may not always be the case for real-world data. Additionally, ANOVA does not take into account the difficulty of classifying certain data points. For example, in a dataset with a single numerical feature and binary labels, all models may achieve 100% accuracy on the training data. However, if the test set contains some mislabeled points, the models may perform differently. In this scenario, ANOVA would not be appropriate because it does not account for the difficulty of classifying certain data points.

Another issue with ANOVA is that it assumes that the variances of the groups being compared are equal. This assumption may not hold for datasets with different levels of noise or variability. In such cases, alternative statistical tests like the Friedman test or the Nemenyi test may be more appropriate.

Friedman test

The Friedman test is a non-parametric test that compares multiple models. In our example, we want to compare the performance of different models, i.e., two baseline models, Gabor randomized, and Gabor repeated, on datasets. First, the test calculates the average rank of each model’s performance on each dataset, with the best-performing model receiving a rank of 1. The Friedman test then tests the null hypothesis, , that all models are equally effective and their average ranks should be equal. The test statistic is calculated as follows:

(1)  

where is the average ranking of each model.

The test result can be used to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the performance of the models by making sure that is not less than the critical value for the distribution for a particular confidence value . However, since could be too conservative, we also calculate the statistic as follows:

(2)  

Based on the critical value, , and , we evaluate ; once the null hypothesis is rejected, we apply a posthoc test. For this, we use the Nemenyi test to establish whether models differ significantly in their performance.

We will start the process of getting this test done by ranking the data. First, we can load the data and verify it with respect to the table shown earlier.

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np

data = [[0.8937, 0.8839, 0.9072, 0.9102],
        [0.8023, 0.8024, 0.8229, 0.8238],
        [0.7130, 0.7132, 0.7198, 0.7206],
        [0.5084, 0.5085, 0.5232, 0.5273],
        [0.2331, 0.2326, 0.3620, 0.3952],
        [0.5174, 0.5175, 0.5307, 0.5178]]

model_names = ['Glorot N.', 'Glorot U.', 'Random G.', 'Repeated G.']

df = pd.DataFrame(data, columns=model_names)

print(df.describe())  #<- use averages to verify if matches table

Output:

       Glorot N.  Glorot U.  Random G.  Repeated G.
count   6.000000   6.000000   6.000000     6.000000
mean    0.611317   0.609683   0.644300     0.649150
std     0.240422   0.238318   0.206871     0.200173
min     0.233100   0.232600   0.362000     0.395200
25%     0.510650   0.510750   0.525075     0.520175
50%     0.615200   0.615350   0.625250     0.623950
75%     0.779975   0.780100   0.797125     0.798000
max     0.893700   0.883900   0.907200     0.910200

Next, we rank the models and get their averages like so:

data = df.rank(1, method='average', ascending=False)
print(data)
print(data.describe())

Output:

   Glorot N.  Glorot U.  Random G.  Repeated G.
0        3.0        4.0        2.0          1.0
1        4.0        3.0        2.0          1.0
2        4.0        3.0        2.0          1.0
3        4.0        3.0        2.0          1.0
4        3.0        4.0        2.0          1.0
5        4.0        3.0        1.0          2.0

       Glorot N.  Glorot U.  Random G.  Repeated G.
count   6.000000   6.000000   6.000000     6.000000
mean    3.666667   3.333333   1.833333     1.166667
std     0.516398   0.516398   0.408248     0.408248
min     3.000000   3.000000   1.000000     1.000000
25%     3.250000   3.000000   2.000000     1.000000
50%     4.000000   3.000000   2.000000     1.000000
75%     4.000000   3.750000   2.000000     1.000000
max     4.000000   4.000000   2.000000     2.000000

With this information, we can expand our initial results table to show the rankings by dataset and the average rankings across all datasets for each model.

Now that we have the rankings, we can proceed with the statistical analysis and do the following:

(3)  

(4)  

The critical value at is 5.417. Thus, because the critical value is below our statistics obtained, we reject with 99% confidence.

The critical value can be obtained from any table that has the F distribution. In the table the degrees of freedom across columns (denoted as ) is , that is the number of models minus one; the degrees of freedom across rows (denoted as ) is , that is, the number of models minus one, times the number of datasets minus one. In our case this is and .

Nemenyi Test

The Nemenyi test is a post-hoc test that compares multiple models after a significant result from Friedman’s test. The null hypothesis for Nemenyi is that there is no difference between any two models, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one pair of models is different.

The formula for Nemenyi is as follows:

   

where is the critical difference of the Studentized range distribution at the chosen significance level and is the number of groups. The value can be obtained from the following table:

Thus, for our particular case study, the critical differences are:

(5)  

(6)  

Since the difference in rank between the randomized Gabor and baseline Glorot normal is 1.83 and is less than the , we conclude Gabor is better. Similarly, since the difference in rank between the fixed Gabor and baseline Glorot uniform is 2.17 and is less than the , we conclude that Gabor is better. Yes, there is sufficient statistical evidence to show that our model is better with high confidence.

Things we would like to see in papers

First of all, it would be nice to have a complete table that includes the results of the statistical tests as part of the caption or as a footnote, like this:

Second of all, graphics always help! A simple and visually appealing diagram is a powerful way to represent post hoc test results when comparing multiple classifiers. The figure below, which illustrates the data analysis from the table above, displays the average ranks of methods along the top line of the diagram. To facilitate interpretation, the axis is oriented so that the best ranks appear on the right side, which enables us to perceive the methods on the right as superior.

When comparing all the algorithms against each other, the groups of algorithms that are not significantly different are connected with a bold solid line. Such an approach clearly highlights the most effective models while also providing a robust analysis of the differences between models. Additionally, the critical difference is shown above the graph, further enhancing the visualization of the analysis results. Overall, this simple yet powerful diagrammatic approach provides a clear and concise representation of the performance of multiple classifiers, enabling more informed decision-making in selecting the best-performing model.

Main Sources

The statistical tests are based on this paper:

Demšar, Janez. “Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets.” The Journal of Machine learning research 7 (2006): 1-30.

The case study is based on the following research:

Rai, Mehang. “On the Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks Initialized with Gabor Filters.” Thesis, Baylor University, 2021.

Summary: The President of the United States, Joe Biden, has recently authorized an Executive Order intending to enhance racial equity and foster support for marginalized communities via the federal government. The Order mandates that federal agencies employing artificial intelligence (AI) systems assume novel equity responsibilities and instructs them to forestall and rectify any form of discrimination, including safeguarding the public from the perils of algorithmic discrimination.

What you should know: The recent Executive Order on Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government emphasizes the importance of advancing equity for all, including communities that have long been underserved, and addressing systemic racism in the US policies and programs. This order implies that AI systems should be designed to ensure that they do not perpetuate or exacerbate inequities and should be used to address the unfair disparities faced by underserved communities. It is also implied that the Federal Government should work with civil society, the private sector, and State and local governments to redress unfair disparities and remove barriers to Government programs and services, which could be facilitated by the development and deployment of ethical and responsible AI systems. Additionally, the order emphasizes the need for evidence-based approaches to equitable policymaking and implementation, which can be achieved through collecting and analyzing data on the impacts of AI systems on different communities. Therefore, AI practitioners should ensure that their systems are designed, developed, and deployed to promote equity, fairness, and inclusivity and are aligned with the Federal Government’s commitment to advancing racial equity and supporting underserved communities.

The Center for Standards and Ethics in Artificial Intelligence (CSEAI)

Following President’s Executive Order, we at the CSEAI recognize the critical role of artificial intelligence in promoting fairness, accountability, and transparency. As a research center committed to developing responsible AI techniques, we believe our work can help meet the challenges and opportunities of emerging regulation, standardization, and best practices in AI systems. We are inviting industry members to partner with us financially and take part in collaborative research on trustworthy AI. Our mission is to provide applicable, actionable, standard practices in trustworthy AI and train a workforce that enables fairness, accountability, and transparency. We believe our work will help mitigate AI adoption’s operational, liability, and reputation risks.

The CSEAI brings together leading universities to conduct collaborative research in responsible AI techniques. We are committed to workforce development and providing accessible standards, best practices, testing, and compliance. We are proud to be a part of the NSF IUCRC Program and are excited to be supported by the NSF, which provides a standard agreement, organizational, and legal framework.

Join us in creating a better future for all Americans by developing responsible AI practices that promote fairness, accountability, and transparency. By partnering with the CSEAI, you will have the opportunity to work with a dedicated team of researchers, participate in cutting-edge research, and help shape the future of AI. Contact us today to learn more about partnering with the CSEAI.

Contact Pablo_Rivas@Baylor.edu and find out more at www.cseai.center.