Comparing the quality of neural network uncertainty estimates for classification problems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05903v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 01:55:14 GMT
• Title: Comparing the quality of neural network uncertainty estimates for classification problems
• Authors: Daniel Ries, Joshua Michalenko, Tyler Ganter, Rashad Imad-Fayez Baiyasi, Jason Adams
• Abstract summary: Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for deep learning (DL) models have received increased attention in the literature. We use statistical methods of frequentist interval coverage and interval width to evaluate the quality of credible intervals. We apply these different UQ for DL methods to a hyperspectral image target detection problem and show the inconsistency of the different methods' results.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Traditional deep learning (DL) models are powerful classifiers, but many approaches do not provide uncertainties for their estimates. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for DL models have received increased attention in the literature due to their usefulness in decision making, particularly for high-consequence decisions. However, there has been little research done on how to evaluate the quality of such methods. We use statistical methods of frequentist interval coverage and interval width to evaluate the quality of credible intervals, and expected calibration error to evaluate classification predicted confidence. These metrics are evaluated on Bayesian neural networks (BNN) fit using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and variational inference (VI), bootstrapped neural networks (NN), Deep Ensembles (DE), and Monte Carlo (MC) dropout. We apply these different UQ for DL methods to a hyperspectral image target detection problem and show the inconsistency of the different methods' results and the necessity of a UQ quality metric. To reconcile these differences and choose a UQ method that appropriately quantifies the uncertainty, we create a simulated data set with fully parameterized probability distribution for a two-class classification problem. The gold standard MCMC performs the best overall, and the bootstrapped NN is a close second, requiring the same computational expense as DE. Through this comparison, we demonstrate that, for a given data set, different models can produce uncertainty estimates of markedly different quality. This in turn points to a great need for principled assessment methods of UQ quality in DL applications.

Related papers

• Legitimate ground-truth-free metrics for deep uncertainty classification scoring [3.9599054392856483]
  The use of Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods in production remains limited. This limitation is exacerbated by the challenge of validating UQ methods in absence of UQ ground truth. This paper investigates such metrics and proves that they are theoretically well-behaved and actually tied to some uncertainty ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T14:14:32Z)
• Evaluation of machine learning architectures on the quantification of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties in complex dynamical systems [0.0]
  Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is a self assessed estimate of the model error. We examine several machine learning techniques, including both Gaussian processes and a family UQ-augmented neural networks. We evaluate UQ accuracy (distinct from model accuracy) using two metrics: the distribution of normalized residuals on validation data, and the distribution of estimated uncertainties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T02:35:25Z)
• Calibration-Aware Bayesian Learning [37.82259435084825]
  This paper proposes an integrated framework, referred to as calibration-aware Bayesian neural networks (CA-BNNs) It applies both data-dependent or data-independent regularizers while optimizing over a variational distribution as in Bayesian learning. Numerical results validate the advantages of the proposed approach in terms of expected calibration error (ECE) and reliability diagrams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T14:19:15Z)
• On double-descent in uncertainty quantification in overparametrized models [24.073221004661427]
  Uncertainty quantification is a central challenge in reliable and trustworthy machine learning. We show a trade-off between classification accuracy and calibration, unveiling a double descent like behavior in the calibration curve of optimally regularized estimators. This is in contrast with the empirical Bayes method, which we show to be well calibrated in our setting despite the higher generalization error and overparametrization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-23T16:01:08Z)
• What is Flagged in Uncertainty Quantification? Latent Density Models for Uncertainty Categorization [68.15353480798244]
  Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is essential for creating trustworthy machine learning models. Recent years have seen a steep rise in UQ methods that can flag suspicious examples. We propose a framework for categorizing uncertain examples flagged by UQ methods in classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-11T19:47:00Z)
• A Decoupled Uncertainty Model for MRI Segmentation Quality Estimation [4.104181348044472]
  We propose a novel CNN architecture to decouple sources of uncertainty related to the task and different k-space artefacts. We show that our uncertainty predictions provide a better estimate of MRI quality from the point of view of the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-06T12:54:44Z)
• Quantifying Uncertainty in Deep Spatiotemporal Forecasting [67.77102283276409]
  We describe two types of forecasting problems: regular grid-based and graph-based. We analyze UQ methods from both the Bayesian and the frequentist point view, casting in a unified framework via statistical decision theory. Through extensive experiments on real-world road network traffic, epidemics, and air quality forecasting tasks, we reveal the statistical computational trade-offs for different UQ methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T14:35:46Z)
• Amortized Conditional Normalized Maximum Likelihood: Reliable Out of Distribution Uncertainty Estimation [99.92568326314667]
  We propose the amortized conditional normalized maximum likelihood (ACNML) method as a scalable general-purpose approach for uncertainty estimation. Our algorithm builds on the conditional normalized maximum likelihood (CNML) coding scheme, which has minimax optimal properties according to the minimum description length principle. We demonstrate that ACNML compares favorably to a number of prior techniques for uncertainty estimation in terms of calibration on out-of-distribution inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-05T08:04:34Z)
• Cross Learning in Deep Q-Networks [82.20059754270302]
  We propose a novel cross Q-learning algorithm, aim at alleviating the well-known overestimation problem in value-based reinforcement learning methods. Our algorithm builds on double Q-learning, by maintaining a set of parallel models and estimate the Q-value based on a randomly selected network.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-29T04:58:17Z)
• Unlabelled Data Improves Bayesian Uncertainty Calibration under Covariate Shift [100.52588638477862]
  We develop an approximate Bayesian inference scheme based on posterior regularisation. We demonstrate the utility of our method in the context of transferring prognostic models of prostate cancer across globally diverse populations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T13:50:19Z)
• Uncertainty Estimation Using a Single Deep Deterministic Neural Network [66.26231423824089]
  We propose a method for training a deterministic deep model that can find and reject out of distribution data points at test time with a single forward pass. We scale training in these with a novel loss function and centroid updating scheme and match the accuracy of softmax models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-04T12:27:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.