CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 48Natural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic Modeling

Uncertainty Estimation in Autoregressive Structured Prediction

Open access
Malinin, Andrey, Gales, Mark·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2002.07650arXiv 2002.07650
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Uncertainty estimation is important for ensuring safety and robustness of AI systems. While most research in the area has focused on un-structured prediction tasks, limited work has investigated general uncertainty estimation approaches for structured prediction. Thus, this work aims to investigate uncertainty estimation for autoregressive structured prediction tasks within a single unified and interpretable probabilistic ensemble-based framework. We consider: uncertainty estimation for sequence data at the token-level and complete sequence-level; interpretations for, and applications of, various measures of uncertainty; and discuss both the theoretical and practical challenges associated with obtaining them. This work also provides baselines for token-level and sequence-level error detection, and sequence-level out-of-domain input detection on the WMT'14 English-French and WMT'17 English-German translation and LibriSpeech speech recognition datasets.

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.2002.07650

Cites

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?

  • Existing unsupervised uncertainty methods ignore the distinction between semantic equivalence and token-level uncertainty.

    “Existing unsupervised methods (e.g., Malinin & Gales (2020)) ignore this distinction.”

    From Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Malinin & Gales (2020)

    Appendix A.1 (pp. 13–14) defines uncertainty over tokens and sequences, without describing a measure that groups semantically equivalent outputs. But the paper does not simply ignore the distinction: the Experimental Evaluation (p. 7) explicitly notes that valid translation rearrangements and substitutions make token-level error labels ill-posed. The claim is supported as a description of the measures, but overstates the paper’s treatment of the issue. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In expectation, longer sequences have lower joint likelihoods because of the conditional independence of token probabilities.

    “As is widely noted (Murray & Chiang, 2018) and especially in the context of NLG uncertainty by Malinin & Gales (2020), in expectation longer sequences have lower joint likelihoods because of the conditional independence of the token probabilities.”

    From Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Malinin & Gales (2020)

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Dario Amodei, Chris Olah, Jacob Steinhardt, Paul F. Christiano, John Schulman, and Dan Mané. Concrete problems in AI safety. http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565 , 2016. arXiv: 1606.06565. · arXiv
  2. Rosana Ardila, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M Tyers, and Gregor Weber. Common voice: A massivelymultilingual speech corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.06670 , 2019. · arXiv
  3. Arsenii Ashukha, Alexander Lyzhov, Dmitry Molchanov, and Dmitry Vetrov. Pitfalls of in-domain uncertainty estimation and ensembling in deep learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJxI5gHKDr .
  4. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2015.
  5. Nicholas Carlini and David A. Wagner. Adversarial examples are not easily detected: Bypassing ten detection methods. CoRR , 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07263 . · arXiv
  6. William Chan, Navdeep Jaitly, Quoc V. Le, and Oriol Vinyals. Listen, Attend and Spell. http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01211 , 2015. arXiv:1508.01211. · arXiv
  7. Zhehuai Chen, Yimeng Zhuang, and Kai Yu. Confidence measures for ctc-based phone synchronous decoding. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 4850-4854. IEEE, 2017.
  8. Thomas M Cover and Joy A Thomas. Elements of information theory . John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
  9. Bryan Eikema and Wilker Aziz. Is map decoding all you need? the inadequacy of the mode in neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10283 , 2020. · arXiv
  10. G. Evermann and P.C. Woodland. Large vocabulary decoding and confidence estimation using word posterior probabilities. In Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2000.
  11. Marina Fomicheva, Shuo Sun, Lisa Yankovskaya, Frédéric Blain, Francisco Guzmán, Mark Fishel, Nikolaos Aletras, Vishrav Chaudhary, and Lucia Specia. Unsupervised quality estimation for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10608 , 2020. · arXiv
  12. Stanislav Fort, Huiyi Hu, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Deep ensembles: A loss landscape perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02757 , 2019. · arXiv
  13. Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning. In Proc. 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-16) , 2016.
  14. Alex Graves, Santiago Fernández, Faustino Gomez, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Connectionist temporal classification: labelling unsegmented sequence data with recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning , pp. 369-376, 2006.
  15. Jiatao Gu, James Bradbury, Caiming Xiong, Victor OK Li, and Richard Socher. Non-autoregressive neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.02281 , 2017. · arXiv
  16. Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-ofDistribution Examples in Neural Networks. http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02136 , 2016. arXiv:1610.02136. · arXiv
  17. Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. The curious case of neural text degeneration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751 , 2019. · arXiv
  18. Philipp Koehn. Statistical machine translation . Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  19. Aviral Kumar and Sunita Sarawagi. Calibration of encoder decoder models for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00802 , 2019. · arXiv
  20. B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell. Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles. In Proc. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) , 2017.
  21. Hank Liao and Mark JF Gales. Uncertainty decoding for noise robust speech recognition. In Proceedings of Interspeech , volume 37. Citeseer, 2007.
  22. A. Malinin, A. Ragni, M.J.F. Gales, and K.M. Knill. Incorporating Uncertainty into Deep Learning for Spoken Language Assessment. In Proc. 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , 2017.
  23. Andrey Malinin. Uncertainty Estimation in Deep Learning with application to Spoken Language Assessment . PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2019.
  24. Andrey Malinin, Bruno Mlodozeniec, and Mark JF Gales. Ensemble distribution distillation. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=BygSP6Vtvr .
  25. Tomas Mikolov, Martin Karafiát, Lukás Burget, Jan Cernocký, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. Recurrent Neural Network Based Language Model. In Proc. INTERSPEECH , 2010.
  26. Tomas Mikolov et al. Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations. In Proc. NAACL-HLT , 2013.
  27. Abdelrahman Mohamed, Dmytro Okhonko, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Transformers with convolutional context for asr. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.11660 , 2019. · arXiv
  28. Kevin P. Murphy. Machine Learning . The MIT Press, 2012.
  29. Myle Ott, Michael Auli, David Grangier, and Marc'Aurelio Ranzato. Analyzing uncertainty in neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00047 , 2018a. · arXiv
  30. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. Scaling neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.00187 , 2018b. · arXiv
  31. Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 2019: Demonstrations , 2019.
  32. 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. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2019.
  33. Vassil Panayotov, Guoguo Chen, Daniel Povey, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. Librispeech: an asr corpus based on public domain audio books. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 5206-5210. IEEE, 2015.
  34. Matt Post. A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers , pp. 186-191, Belgium, Brussels, October 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W18-6319 .
  35. Anton Ragni, Qiujia Li, Mark JF Gales, and Yongqiang Wang. Confidence estimation and deletion prediction using bidirectional recurrent neural networks. In 2018 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT) , pp. 204-211. IEEE, 2018.
  36. Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.07909 , 2015. · arXiv
  37. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2015.
  38. L. Smith and Y. Gal. Understanding Measures of Uncertainty for Adversarial Example Detection. In UAI , 2018.
  39. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pp. 5998-6008, 2017.
  40. Shuo Wang, Yang Liu, Chao Wang, Huanbo Luan, and Maosong Sun. Improving back-translation with uncertainty-based confidence estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00157 , 2019. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malinin, A., & Gales, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Yandex (Russia) (RU)
ORCID
Gales, Mark
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2002.07650
arXiv
2002.07650
OpenAlex
W3123791752
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Apollo
  • International Conference on Learning Representations
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
uncertainty estimation, structured prediction, autoregressive models, probabilistic ensembles, error detection, out-of-domain detection, machine translation, speech recognition, explainable AI

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