Cited by 114Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference

A Survey on Uncertainty Estimation in Deep Learning Classification Systems from a Bayesian Perspective

Mena, José, Pujol, Oriol, Vitrià, Jordi·2022·ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

Decision-making based on machine learning systems, especially when this decision-making can affect human lives, is a subject of maximum interest in the Machine Learning community. It is, therefore, necessary to equip these systems with a means of estimating uncertainty in the predictions they emit in order to help practitioners make more informed decisions. In the present work, we introduce the topic of uncertainty estimation, and we analyze the peculiarities of such estimation when applied to classification systems. We analyze different methods that have been designed to provide classification systems based on deep learning with mechanisms for measuring the uncertainty of their predictions. We will take a look at how this uncertainty can be modeled and measured using different approaches, as well as practical considerations of different applications of uncertainty. Moreover, we review some of the properties that should be borne in mind when developing such metrics. All in all, the present survey aims at providing a pragmatic overview of the estimation of uncertainty in classification systems that can be very useful for both academic research and deep learning practitioners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3477140

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Uncertainty-based hallucination detection methods have a close relationship with classical uncertainty estimation methods.

    “It has a close relationship with classical uncertainty estimation methods [1, 180], since the generation of each token can be viewed as a vocabulary size classification problem.”

    From Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as [180]

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 53 · Cited by 114

Authors
Mena, J., Pujol, O., & Vitrià, J.
Affiliations
  • EURECAT Centre Tecnològic de Catalunya (ES)
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • Departament de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Published
2021-10-08
Volume
54
Issue
9
Pages
1-35
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
OpenAlex
W3205854703
Cited by
114
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 11 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Spanish projects (PID2019-105093GB-I00, TIN201566951-C2 (MINECO/FEDER, UE), RTI2018-095232-B-C21, and 2017 SGR 1742)
  • Government of Catalonia agency AGAUR
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
uncertainty estimation, deep learning classification, Bayesian analysis, forecast uncertainty, uncertainty measures, safety-critical decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review