NeuMiss networks: differentiable programming for supervised learning with missing values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of missing values makes supervised learning much more challenging. Indeed, previous work has shown that even when the response is a linear function of the complete data, the optimal predictor is a complex function of the observed entries and the missingness indicator. As a result, the computational or sample complexities of consistent approaches depend on the number of missing patterns, which can be exponential in the number of dimensions. In this work, we derive the analytical form of the optimal predictor under a linearity assumption and various missing data mechanisms including Missing at Random (MAR) and self-masking (Missing Not At Random). Based on a Neumann-series approximation of the optimal predictor, we propose a new principled architecture, named NeuMiss networks. Their originality and strength come from the use of a new type of non-linearity: the multiplication by the missingness indicator. We provide an upper bound on the Bayes risk of NeuMiss networks, and show that they have good predictive accuracy with both a number of parameters and a computational complexity independent of the number of missing data patterns. As a result they scale well to problems with many features, and remain statistically efficient for medium-sized samples. Moreover, we show that, contrary to procedures using EM or imputation, they are robust to the missing data mechanism, including difficult MNAR settings such as self-masking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".