CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 694Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference

Evidential Deep Learning to Quantify Classification Uncertainty

Open access
Sensoy, Murat, Kaplan, Lance, Kandemir, Melih·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1806.01768arXiv 1806.01768
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Deterministic neural nets have been shown to learn effective predictors on a wide range of machine learning problems. However, as the standard approach is to train the network to minimize a prediction loss, the resultant model remains ignorant to its prediction confidence. Orthogonally to Bayesian neural nets that indirectly infer prediction uncertainty through weight uncertainties, we propose explicit modeling of the same using the theory of subjective logic. By placing a Dirichlet distribution on the class probabilities, we treat predictions of a neural net as subjective opinions and learn the function that collects the evidence leading to these opinions by a deterministic neural net from data. The resultant predictor for a multi-class classification problem is another Dirichlet distribution whose parameters are set by the continuous output of a neural net. We provide a preliminary analysis on how the peculiarities of our new loss function drive improved uncertainty estimation. We observe that our method achieves unprecedented success on detection of out-of-distribution queries and endurance against adversarial perturbations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1806.01768

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Vanilla EDL is considered a state-of-the-art approach for efficient single-pass uncertainty estimation.

    “It is considered a state-of-the-art (SOTA) approach for efficient single-pass uncertainty estimation.”

    From A cascade framework for on-device uncertainty-aware event detection on microcontrollers (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Conclusions (p. 9) say EDL significantly improves the state of the art on two uncertainty benchmarks, and Related Work (p. 9) describes obtaining its Dirichlet parameters from a deterministic neural net rather than Monte Carlo integration. This supports the characterization of EDL as a strong uncertainty-estimation method, but the paper does not explicitly establish single-pass operation or measure its efficiency; its state-of-the-art claim is limited to those two benchmarks. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Evidential Deep Learning allows a model to directly output a probability distribution parameterized by evidence rather than just a point prediction, enabling efficient uncertainty quantification within a single forward pass.

    “EDL allows the model to directly output a probability distribution (parameterized by evidence) rather than just a point prediction, enabling efficient uncertainty quantification within a single forward pass (Section 4).”

    From A cascade framework for on-device uncertainty-aware event detection on microcontrollers (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

  • The Type II Maximum Likelihood loss encourages the model to produce high evidence corresponding to the correct class label.

    “This loss encourages the model to produce high evidence ( 𝛼 𝑖 𝑐 or 𝛽 𝑖 𝑐 ) corresponding to the correct class label.”

    From A cascade framework for on-device uncertainty-aware event detection on microcontrollers (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1][1] M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard, et al. Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In OSDI , volume 16, pages 265-283, 2016. -
  2. [2][2] C. Blundell, J. Cornebise, K. Kavukcuoglu, and D. Wiestra. Weight uncertainty in neural networks. In ICML , 2015. -
  3. [3][3] T. Chen, E. Fox, and C. Guestrin. Stochastic gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. In ICML , 2017. -
  4. [4][4] D. Ciresan, A. Giusti, L.M. Gambardella, and J. Schmidhuber. Deep neural networks segment neuronal membranes in electron microscopy images. In NIPS , 2012. -
  5. [6][6] M. Welling D. Kingma, T. Salimans. Variational dropout and the local reparameterization trick. In NIPS , 2015. -
  6. [7][7] A.P. Dempster. A generalization of Bayesian inference. In Classic works of the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions , pages 73-104. Springer, 2008. -
  7. [8][8] Y. Gal and Z. Ghahramani. Bayesian convolutional neural networks with bernoulli approximate variational inference. ICLR Workshops , 2016. -
  8. [9][9] Y. Gal and Z. Ghahramani. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In ICML , 2016. -
  9. [10][10] I.J. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, and C. Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572 , 2014. - · arXiv
  10. [11][11] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR , 2016. -
  11. [12][12] N. Houlsby, F. Huszar, Z. Ghahramani, and J.M. Hernández-Lobato. Collaborative Gaussian processes for preference learning. In NIPS , 2012. -
  12. [13][13] S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In ICML , 2015. -
  13. [14][14] A. Josang. Subjective Logic: A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncertainty . Springer, 2016. -
  14. [15][15] M. Kandemir. Asymmetric transfer learning with deep Gaussian processes. In ICML , 2015. -
  15. [16][16] A. Kendall and Y. Gal. What uncertainties do we need in Bayesian deep learning for computer vision? In NIPS , 2017. -
  16. [17][17] D.P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimisation. In ICLR , 2015. -
  17. [18][18] D.P. Kingma, T. Salimans, and M. Welling. Variational dropout and the local reparameterization trick. In NIPS , 2015. -
  18. [19][19] S. Kotz, N. Balakrishnan, and N.L. Johnson. Continuous Multivariate Distributions , volume 1. Wiley, New York, 2000. -
  19. [20][20] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G.E. Hinton. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In NIPS , 2012. -
  20. [21][21] B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In NIPS , 2017. -
  21. [23][23] Y. Li and Y. Gal. Dropout inference in Bayesian neural networks with alpha-divergences. In ICML , 2017. -
  22. [24][24] C. Louizos and M. Welling. Multiplicative normalizing flows for variational bayesian neural networks. In ICML , 2017. -
  23. [25][25] D.J. MacKay. Probable networks and plausible predictions - a review of practical Bayesian methods for supervised neural networks. Network: Computation in Neural Systems , 6(3):469505, 1995. -
  24. [26][26] D. Molchanov, A. Ashukha, and D. Vetrov. Variational dropout sparsifies deep neural networks. In ICML , 2017. -
  25. [27][27] D. Molchanov, A. Ashukha, and D. Vetrov. Variational dropout sparsifies deep neural networks. In ICML , 2017. -
  26. [28][28] N. Papernot, N. Carlini, I. Goodfellow, R. Feinman, F. Faghri, A. Matyasko, K. Hambardzumyan, Y.-L. Juang, A. Kurakin, R. Sheatsley, et al. Cleverhans v2. 0.0: An adversarial machine learning library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.00768 , 2016. - · arXiv
  27. [29][29] C.E. Rasmussen and C.I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning . MIT Press, 2006. -
  28. [30][30] N. Srivastava, G. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15:1929-1958, 2016. -
  29. [31][31] D. Tran, R. Ranganath, and D. Blei. The variational Gaussian process. In ICLR , 2016. -
  30. [32][32] A.G. Wilson. Deep kernel learning. In AISTATS , 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sensoy, M., Kaplan, L., & Kandemir, M.
Affiliations
University of Southern Denmark (DK)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1806.01768
arXiv
1806.01768
OpenAlex
W2806471870
Cited by
694
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 122 · 2024: 173 · 2023: 154 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 1
FWCI
15.52
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eResearch@Ozyegin (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
evidential deep learning, classification uncertainty, subjective logic, Dirichlet distribution, multi-class classification, out-of-distribution detection, adversarial robustness, loss function design, prediction confidence

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