Interpreting Predictive Probabilities: Model Confidence or Human Label Variation?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16102v1
• Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:00:13 GMT
• Title: Interpreting Predictive Probabilities: Model Confidence or Human Label Variation?
• Authors: Joris Baan, Raquel Fern\'andez, Barbara Plank, Wilker Aziz
• Abstract summary: We identify two main perspectives that drive starkly different evaluation protocols. We discuss their merits and limitations, and take the position that both are crucial for trustworthy and fair NLP systems. We recommend tools and highlight exciting directions towards models with disentangled representations of uncertainty about predictions and uncertainty about human labels.
• Score: 27.226997687210044
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the rise of increasingly powerful and user-facing NLP systems, there is growing interest in assessing whether they have a good representation of uncertainty by evaluating the quality of their predictive distribution over outcomes. We identify two main perspectives that drive starkly different evaluation protocols. The first treats predictive probability as an indication of model confidence; the second as an indication of human label variation. We discuss their merits and limitations, and take the position that both are crucial for trustworthy and fair NLP systems, but that exploiting a single predictive distribution is limiting. We recommend tools and highlight exciting directions towards models with disentangled representations of uncertainty about predictions and uncertainty about human labels.

Related papers

• Performative Prediction on Games and Mechanism Design [69.7933059664256]
  We study a collective risk dilemma where agents decide whether to trust predictions based on past accuracy. As predictions shape collective outcomes, social welfare arises naturally as a metric of concern. We show how to achieve better trade-offs and use them for mechanism design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T16:03:44Z)
• Beyond Confidence: Reliable Models Should Also Consider Atypicality [43.012818086415514]
  We investigate the relationship between how atypical(rare) a sample or a class is and the reliability of a model's predictions. We show that predictions for atypical inputs or atypical classes are more overconfident and have lower accuracy. We propose that models should use not only confidence but also atypicality to improve uncertainty quantification and performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T17:37:09Z)
• Toward Reliable Human Pose Forecasting with Uncertainty [51.628234388046195]
  We develop an open-source library for human pose forecasting, including multiple models, supporting several datasets. We devise two types of uncertainty in the problem to increase performance and convey better trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T17:56:08Z)
• Confidence and Dispersity Speak: Characterising Prediction Matrix for Unsupervised Accuracy Estimation [51.809741427975105]
  This work aims to assess how well a model performs under distribution shifts without using labels. We use the nuclear norm that has been shown to be effective in characterizing both properties. We show that the nuclear norm is more accurate and robust in accuracy than existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T13:30:48Z)
• Reliability-Aware Prediction via Uncertainty Learning for Person Image Retrieval [51.83967175585896]
  UAL aims at providing reliability-aware predictions by considering data uncertainty and model uncertainty simultaneously. Data uncertainty captures the noise" inherent in the sample, while model uncertainty depicts the model's confidence in the sample's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T17:53:20Z)
• What Should I Know? Using Meta-gradient Descent for Predictive Feature Discovery in a Single Stream of Experience [63.75363908696257]
  computational reinforcement learning seeks to construct an agent's perception of the world through predictions of future sensations. An open challenge in this line of work is determining from the infinitely many predictions that the agent could possibly make which predictions might best support decision-making. We introduce a meta-gradient descent process by which an agent learns what predictions to make, 2) the estimates for its chosen predictions, and 3) how to use those estimates to generate policies that maximize future reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-13T21:31:06Z)
• Multi-label Chaining with Imprecise Probabilities [0.0]
  We present two different strategies to extend the classical multi-label chaining approach to handle imprecise probability estimates. The main reasons one could have for using such estimations are (1) to make cautious predictions when a high uncertainty is detected in the chaining and (2) to make better precise predictions by avoiding biases caused in early decisions in the chaining. Our experimental results on missing labels, which investigate how reliable these predictions are in both approaches, indicate that our approaches produce relevant cautiousness on those hard-to-predict instances where the precise models fail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-15T16:43:31Z)
• When Does Uncertainty Matter?: Understanding the Impact of Predictive Uncertainty in ML Assisted Decision Making [68.19284302320146]
  We carry out user studies to assess how people with differing levels of expertise respond to different types of predictive uncertainty. We found that showing posterior predictive distributions led to smaller disagreements with the ML model's predictions. This suggests that posterior predictive distributions can potentially serve as useful decision aids which should be used with caution and take into account the type of distribution and the expertise of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-12T02:23:53Z)
• Getting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimates [30.367995696223726]
  We propose a novel method for interpreting uncertainty estimates from differentiable probabilistic models. Our method, Counterfactual Latent Uncertainty Explanations (CLUE), indicates how to change an input, while keeping it on the data manifold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T21:53:15Z)

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.