CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 178Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsMachine Learning and Data Classification

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pitfalls of In-Domain Uncertainty Estimation and Ensembling in Deep Learning

Open access
Ashukha, Arsenii, Lyzhov, Alexander, Molchanov, Dmitry, Vetrov, Dmitry·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2002.06470arXiv 2002.06470
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Uncertainty estimation and ensembling methods go hand-in-hand. Uncertainty estimation is one of the main benchmarks for assessment of ensembling performance. At the same time, deep learning ensembles have provided state-of-the-art results in uncertainty estimation. In this work, we focus on in-domain uncertainty for image classification. We explore the standards for its quantification and point out pitfalls of existing metrics. Avoiding these pitfalls, we perform a broad study of different ensembling techniques. To provide more insight in this study, we introduce the deep ensemble equivalent score (DEE) and show that many sophisticated ensembling techniques are equivalent to an ensemble of only few independently trained networks in terms of test performance.

Overview

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.2002.06470

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Different UQ methods in RL have been widely investigated in the literature.

    “Different UQ methods in RL have been widely investigated in the literature [179].”

    From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [179]

    The Scope of the Paper (p. 2) names reinforcement learning as a setting where reliable probability estimates matter and ensembling is used, citing two RL studies. Section 4 (p. 6) surveys several uncertainty-estimation methods, but the paper studies image classification rather than establishing that different UQ methods have been widely investigated in RL. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both TTA and MEMO are effective at improving performance for the original CIFAR-10 test set where there is no distribution shift.

    “Both TTA and MEMO are also effective at improving performance for the original CIFAR-10 test set where there is no distribution shift, providing further support for the widespread use of augmentations in standard evaluation protocols [23, 2].”

    From MEMO: Test Time Robustness Via Adaptation and Augmentation (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    Section 4.3 (pp. 9–10) reports test-time augmentation on CIFAR-10 and says it improves most ensembling methods, although gains for powerful ensembles on CIFAR are less dramatic. Appendix C (p. 29) compares CIFAR-10 results before and after augmentation. The paper does not report results for MEMO, so it supports the TTA part of the claim but not the MEMO part. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Deep ensembles are one of the best performing uncertainty quantification approaches for neural networks, retaining calibration even under dataset shift.

    “Currently, deep ensembles [70] are one of best performing uncertainty quantification approaches for NNs [5], retaining calibration even under dataset shift [97].”

    From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Andrei Atanov, Arsenii Ashukha, Dmitry Molchanov, Kirill Neklyudov, and Dmitry Vetrov. Uncertainty estimation via stochastic batch normalization. In International Symposium on Neural Networks , pp. 261-269. Springer, 2019.
  2. Anoop Korattikara Balan, Vivek Rathod, Kevin P Murphy, and Max Welling. Bayesian dark knowledge. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 3438-3446, 2015.
  3. Charles Blundell, Julien Cornebise, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. Weight uncertainty in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.05424 , 2015. · arXiv
  4. Jacob Buckman, Danijar Hafner, George Tucker, Eugene Brevdo, and Honglak Lee. Sampleefficient reinforcement learning with stochastic ensemble value expansion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 8224-8234, 2018.
  5. Kurtland Chua, Roberto Calandra, Rowan McAllister, and Sergey Levine. Deep reinforcement learning in a handful of trials using probabilistic dynamics models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 4754-4765, 2018.
  6. Yufei Cui, Wuguannan Yao, Qiao Li, Antoni B Chan, and Chun Jason Xue. Accelerating monte carlo bayesian inference via approximating predictive uncertainty over simplex. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12194 , 2019. · arXiv
  7. Yukun Ding, Jinglan Liu, Jinjun Xiong, and Yiyu Shi. Evaluation of neural network uncertainty estimation with application to resource-constrained platforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02050 , 2019. · arXiv
  8. Yarin Gal. Uncertainty in deep learning . PhD thesis, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2016.
  9. Timur Garipov, Pavel Izmailov, Dmitrii Podoprikhin, Dmitry P Vetrov, and Andrew G Wilson. Loss surfaces, mode connectivity, and fast ensembling of dnns. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 8789-8798, 2018.
  10. Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70 , pp. 1321-1330. JMLR. org, 2017.
  11. Fredrik K Gustafsson, Martin Danelljan, and Thomas B Sch¨ on. Evaluating scalable bayesian deep learning methods for robust computer vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01620 , 2019. · arXiv
  12. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 770-778, 2016.
  13. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , 2015. · arXiv
  14. Gao Huang, Yixuan Li, Geoff Pleiss, Zhuang Liu, John E Hopcroft, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Snapshot ensembles: Train 1, get m for free. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00109 , 2017. · arXiv
  15. Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 , 2015. · arXiv
  16. Pavel Izmailov, Dmitrii Podoprikhin, Timur Garipov, Dmitry Vetrov, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. Averaging weights leads to wider optima and better generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05407 , 2018. · arXiv
  17. Durk P Kingma, Tim Salimans, and Max Welling. Variational dropout and the local reparameterization trick. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 2575-2583, 2015.
  18. Ananya Kumar, Percy S Liang, and Tengyu Ma. Verified uncertainty calibration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 3787-3798, 2019.
  19. Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 6402-6413, 2017.
  20. Christos Louizos and Max Welling. Multiplicative normalizing flows for variational bayesian neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70 , pp. 2218-2227. JMLR. org, 2017.
  21. Wesley Maddox, Timur Garipov, Pavel Izmailov, Dmitry Vetrov, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. A simple baseline for bayesian uncertainty in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02476 , 2019. · arXiv
  22. Andrey Malinin and Mark Gales. Predictive uncertainty estimation via prior networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 7047-7058, 2018.
  23. James Martens and Roger Grosse. Optimizing neural networks with kronecker-factored approximate curvature. In International conference on machine learning , pp. 2408-2417, 2015.
  24. Dmitry Molchanov, Arsenii Ashukha, and Dmitry Vetrov. Variational dropout sparsifies deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70 , pp. 2498-2507. JMLR. org, 2017.
  25. Marcin Mo˙ zejko, Mateusz Susik, and Rafał Karczewski. Inhibited softmax for uncertainty estimation in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01861 , 2018. · arXiv
  26. Malik Sajjad Ahmed Nadeem, Jean-Daniel Zucker, and Blaise Hanczar. Accuracy-rejection curves (arcs) for comparing classification methods with a reject option. In Machine Learning in Systems Biology , pp. 65-81, 2009.
  27. Mahdi Pakdaman Naeini, Gregory Cooper, and Milos Hauskrecht. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning. In Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2015.
  28. Yaniv Ovadia, Emily Fertig, Jie Ren, Zachary Nado, D Sculley, Sebastian Nowozin, Joshua V Dillon, Balaji Lakshminarayanan, and Jasper Snoek. Can you trust your model's uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.02530 , 2019. · arXiv
  29. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Soumith Chintala, Gregory Chanan, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Zeming Lin, Alban Desmaison, Luca Antiga, and Adam Lerer. Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. In NIPS Autodiff Workshop , 2017.
  30. Joaquin Quinonero-Candela, Carl Edward Rasmussen, Fabian Sinz, Olivier Bousquet, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Evaluating predictive uncertainty challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges Workshop , pp. 1-27. Springer, 2005.
  31. Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, Sanjeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. International journal of computer vision , 115(3):211-252, 2015.
  32. Burr Settles. Active learning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning , 6 (1):1-114, 2012.
  33. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014. · arXiv
  34. Leslie N Smith and Nicholay Topin. Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. In Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations Applications , volume 11006, pp. 1100612. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2019.
  35. Casper Kaae Sønderby, Tapani Raiko, Lars Maaløe, Søren Kaae Sønderby, and Ole Winther. How to train deep variational autoencoders and probabilistic ladder networks. In 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2016) , 2016.
  36. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The journal of machine learning research , 15(1):1929-1958, 2014.
  37. Christian Szegedy, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199 , 2013. · arXiv
  38. Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 1-9, 2015.
  39. Mattias Teye, Hossein Azizpour, and Kevin Smith. Bayesian uncertainty estimation for batch normalized deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2018.
  40. Marcin B Tomczak, Siddharth Swaroop, and Richard E Turner. Neural network ensembles and variational inference revisited. In 1st Symposium on Advances in Approximate Bayesian Inference , pp. 1-11, 2018.
  41. Linh Tran, Bastiaan S Veeling, Kevin Roth, Jakub Swiatkowski, Joshua V Dillon, Jasper Snoek, Stephan Mandt, Tim Salimans, Sebastian Nowozin, and Rodolphe Jenatton. Hydra: Preserving ensemble diversity for model distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04694 , 2020. · arXiv
  42. Karen Ullrich, Edward Meeds, and Max Welling. Soft weight-sharing for neural network compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04008 , 2017. · arXiv
  43. Juozas Vaicenavicius, David Widmann, Carl Andersson, Fredrik Lindsten, Jacob Roll, and Thomas B Schon. Evaluating model calibration in classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06977 , 2019. · arXiv
  44. Kuan-Chieh Wang, Paul Vicol, James Lucas, Li Gu, Roger Grosse, and Richard Zemel. Adversarial distillation of bayesian neural network posteriors. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 5177-5186, 2018.
  45. Sida Wang and Christopher Manning. Fast dropout training. In international conference on machine learning , pp. 118-126, 2013.
  46. Max Welling and Yee W Teh. Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient langevin dynamics. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11) , pp. 681-688, 2011.
  47. Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412 , 2017. · arXiv
  48. Ruqi Zhang, Chunyuan Li, Jianyi Zhang, Changyou Chen, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. Cyclical stochastic gradient mcmc for bayesian deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03932 , 2019. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ashukha, A., Lyzhov, A., Molchanov, D., & Vetrov, D.
Affiliations
National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Pages
1-29
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2002.06470
arXiv
2002.06470
OpenAlex
W2995464762
Cited by
178
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 33
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
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 › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
image classification, uncertainty measures, ensemble equivalence, uncertainty quantification

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