Source author record

Niklas Pfister

Niklas Pfister appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Methodology Machine Learning math.ST Statistics Theory eess.SY math.DS Robotics Systems and Control

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

8topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Learning by Doing: Controlling a Dynamical System using Causality, Control, and Reinforcement Learning

Questions in causality, control, and reinforcement learning go beyond the classical machine learning task of prediction under i.i.d. observations. Instead, these fields consider the problem of learning how to actively perturb a system to achieve a certain effect on a response variable. Arguably, they have complementary views on the problem: In control, one usually aims to first identify the system by excitation strategies to then apply model-based design techniques to control the system. In (non-model-based) reinforcement learning, one directly optimizes a reward. In causality, one focus is on identifiability of causal structure. We believe that combining the different views might create synergies and this competition is meant as a first step toward such synergies. The participants had access to observational and (offline) interventional data generated by dynamical systems. Track CHEM considers an open-loop problem in which a single impulse at the beginning of the dynamics can be set, while Track ROBO considers a closed-loop problem in which control variables can be set at each time step. The goal in both tracks is to infer controls that drive the system to a desired state. Code is open-sourced ( https://github.com/LearningByDoingCompetition/learningbydoing-comp ) to reproduce the winning solutions of the competition and to facilitate trying out new methods on the competition tasks.

preprint2022arXiv

Statistical Testing under Distributional Shifts

In this work, we introduce statistical testing under distributional shifts. We are interested in the hypothesis $P^* \in H_0$ for a target distribution $P^*$, but observe data from a different distribution $Q^*$. We assume that $P^*$ is related to $Q^*$ through a known shift $τ$ and formally introduce hypothesis testing in this setting. We propose a general testing procedure that first resamples from the observed data to construct an auxiliary data set and then applies an existing test in the target domain. We prove that if the size of the resample is at most $o(\sqrt{n})$ and the resampling weights are well-behaved, this procedure inherits the pointwise asymptotic level and power from the target test. If the map $τ$ is estimated from data, we can maintain the above guarantees under mild conditions if the estimation works sufficiently well. We further extend our results to finite sample level, uniform asymptotic level and a different resampling scheme. Testing under distributional shifts allows us to tackle a diverse set of problems. We argue that it may prove useful in reinforcement learning and covariate shift, we show how it reduces conditional to unconditional independence testing and we provide example applications in causal inference.

preprint2020arXiv

Causal models for dynamical systems

A probabilistic model describes a system in its observational state. In many situations, however, we are interested in the system's response under interventions. The class of structural causal models provides a language that allows us to model the behaviour under interventions. It can been taken as a starting point to answer a plethora of causal questions, including the identification of causal effects or causal structure learning. In this chapter, we provide a natural and straight-forward extension of this concept to dynamical systems, focusing on continuous time models. In particular, we introduce two types of causal kinetic models that differ in how the randomness enters into the model: it may either be considered as observational noise or as systematic driving noise. In both cases, we define interventions and therefore provide a possible starting point for causal inference. In this sense, the book chapter provides more questions than answers. The focus of the proposed causal kinetic models lies on the dynamics themselves rather than corresponding stationary distributions, for example. We believe that this is beneficial when the aim is to model the full time evolution of the system and data are measured at different time points. Under this focus, it is natural to consider interventions in the differential equations themselves.

preprint2016arXiv

Kernel-based Tests for Joint Independence

We investigate the problem of testing whether $d$ random variables, which may or may not be continuous, are jointly (or mutually) independent. Our method builds on ideas of the two variable Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC) but allows for an arbitrary number of variables. We embed the $d$-dimensional joint distribution and the product of the marginals into a reproducing kernel Hilbert space and define the $d$-variable Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (dHSIC) as the squared distance between the embeddings. In the population case, the value of dHSIC is zero if and only if the $d$ variables are jointly independent, as long as the kernel is characteristic. Based on an empirical estimate of dHSIC, we define three different non-parametric hypothesis tests: a permutation test, a bootstrap test and a test based on a Gamma approximation. We prove that the permutation test achieves the significance level and that the bootstrap test achieves pointwise asymptotic significance level as well as pointwise asymptotic consistency (i.e., it is able to detect any type of fixed dependence in the large sample limit). The Gamma approximation does not come with these guarantees; however, it is computationally very fast and for small $d$, it performs well in practice. Finally, we apply the test to a problem in causal discovery.