skip to main content

Title: Likelihood-Free Overcomplete ICA and Applications in Causal Discovery
Causal discovery witnessed significant progress over the past decades. In particular,many recent causal discovery methods make use of independent, non-Gaussian noise to achieve identifiability of the causal models. Existence of hidden direct common causes, or confounders, generally makes causal discovery more difficult;whenever they are present, the corresponding causal discovery algorithms canbe seen as extensions of overcomplete independent component analysis (OICA). However, existing OICA algorithms usually make strong parametric assumptions on the distribution of independent components, which may be violated on real data, leading to sub-optimal or even wrong solutions. In addition, existing OICA algorithms rely on the Expectation Maximization (EM) procedure that requires computationally expensive inference of the posterior distribution of independent components. To tackle these problems, we present a Likelihood-Free Overcomplete ICA algorithm (LFOICA1) that estimates the mixing matrix directly byback-propagation without any explicit assumptions on the density function of independent components. Thanks to its computational efficiency, the proposed method makes a number of causal discovery procedures much more practically feasible.For illustrative purposes, we demonstrate the computational efficiency and efficacy of our method in two causal discovery tasks on both synthetic and real data.
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Advances in neural information processing systems
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)
    The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should producemore »identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues.« less
  2. Finding overcomplete latent representations of data has applications in data analysis, signal processing, machine learning, theoretical neuroscience and many other fields. In an overcomplete representation, the number of latent features exceeds the data dimensionality, which is useful when the data is undersampled by the measurements (compressed sensing or information bottlenecks in neural systems) or composed from multiple complete sets of linear features, each spanning the data space. Independent Components Analysis (ICA) is a linear technique for learning sparse latent representations, which typically has a lower computational cost than sparse coding, a linear generative model which requires an iterative, nonlinear inference step. While well suited for finding complete representations, we show that overcompleteness poses a challenge to existing ICA algorithms. Specifically, the coherence control used in existing ICA and other dictionary learning algorithms, necessary to prevent the formation of duplicate dictionary features, is ill-suited in the overcomplete case. We show that in the overcomplete case, several existing ICA algorithms have undesirable global minima that maximize coherence. We provide a theoretical explanation of these failures and, based on the theory, propose improved coherence control costs for overcomplete ICA algorithms. Further, by comparing ICA algorithms to the computationally more expensive sparse coding onmore »synthetic data, we show that the limited applicability of overcomplete, linear inference can be extended with the proposed cost functions. Finally, when trained on natural images, we show that the coherence control biases the exploration of the data manifold, sometimes yielding suboptimal, coherent solutions. All told, this study contributes new insights into and methods for coherence control for linear ICA, some of which are applicable to many other nonlinear models.« less
  3. The complexity, dynamics, and scale of data acquired by modern biotechnology increasingly favor model-free computational methods that make minimal assumptions about underlying biological mechanisms. For example, single-cell transcriptome and proteome data have a throughput several orders more than bulk methods. Many model-free statistical methods for pattern discovery such as mutual information and chi-squared tests, however, require discrete data. Most discretization methods minimize squared errors for each variable independently, not necessarily retaining joint patterns. To address this issue, we present a joint grid discretization algorithm that preserves clusters in the original data. We evaluated this algorithm on simulated data to show its advantage over other methods in maintaining clusters as measured by the adjusted Rand index. We also show it promotes global functional patterns over independent patterns. On single-cell proteome and transcriptome of leukemia and healthy blood, joint grid discretization captured known protein-to-RNA regulatory relationships, while revealing previously unknown interactions. As such, the joint grid discretization is applicable as a data transformation step in associative, functional, and causal inference of molecular interactions fundamental to systems biology. The developed software is publicly available at
  4. Abstract Background

    Statistical geneticists employ simulation to estimate the power of proposed studies, test new analysis tools, and evaluate properties of causal models. Although there are existing trait simulators, there is ample room for modernization. For example, most phenotype simulators are limited to Gaussian traits or traits transformable to normality, while ignoring qualitative traits and realistic, non-normal trait distributions. Also, modern computer languages, such as Julia, that accommodate parallelization and cloud-based computing are now mainstream but rarely used in older applications. To meet the challenges of contemporary big studies, it is important for geneticists to adopt new computational tools.


    We present , an open-source Julia package that makes it trivial to quickly simulate phenotypes under a variety of genetic architectures. This package is integrated into our OpenMendel suite for easy downstream analyses. Julia was purpose-built for scientific programming and provides tremendous speed and memory efficiency, easy access to multi-CPU and GPU hardware, and to distributed and cloud-based parallelization. is designed to encourage flexible trait simulation, including via the standard devices of applied statistics, generalized linear models (GLMs) and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). also accommodates many study designs: unrelateds, sibships, pedigrees, or a mixture of all three. (Of course, for datamore »with pedigrees or cryptic relationships, the simulation process must include the genetic dependencies among the individuals.) We consider an assortment of trait models and study designs to illustrate integrated simulation and analysis pipelines. Step-by-step instructions for these analyses are available in our electronic Jupyter notebooks on Github. These interactive notebooks are ideal for reproducible research.


    The package has three main advantages. (1) It leverages the computational efficiency and ease of use of Julia to provide extremely fast, straightforward simulation of even the most complex genetic models, including GLMs and GLMMs. (2) It can be operated entirely within, but is not limited to, the integrated analysis pipeline of OpenMendel. And finally (3), by allowing a wider range of more realistic phenotype models, brings power calculations and diagnostic tools closer to what investigators might see in real-world analyses.

    « less
  5. Ad-hoc data models like Json simplify schema evolution and enable multiplexing various data sources into a single stream. While useful when writing data, this flexibility makes Json harder to validate and query, forcing such tasks to rely on automated schema discovery techniques. Unfortunately, ambiguity in the schema design space forces existing schema discovery systems to make simplifying, data-independent assumptions about schema structure. When these assumptions are violated, most notably by APIs, the generated schemas are imprecise, creating numerous opportunities for false positives during validation. In this paper, we propose Jxplain, a Json schema discovery algorithm with heuristics that mitigate common forms of ambiguity. Although Jxplain is slightly slower than state of the art schema extractors, we show that it produces significantly more precise schemas.