CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 237Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Simple and principled uncertainty estimation with deterministic deep learning via distance awareness

Open access
Liu, Jeremiah Zhe, Lin, Zi, Padhy, Shreyas, Tran, Dustin, Bedrax-Weiss, Tania, Lakshminarayanan, Balaji·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2006.10108arXiv 2006.10108
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Bayesian neural networks (BNN) and deep ensembles are principled approaches to estimate the predictive uncertainty of a deep learning model. However their practicality in real-time, industrial-scale applications are limited due to their heavy memory and inference cost. This motivates us to study principled approaches to high-quality uncertainty estimation that require only a single deep neural network (DNN). By formalizing the uncertainty quantification as a minimax learning problem, we first identify input distance awareness, i.e., the model's ability to quantify the distance of a testing example from the training data in the input space, as a necessary condition for a DNN to achieve high-quality (i.e., minimax optimal) uncertainty estimation. We then propose Spectral-normalized Neural Gaussian Process (SNGP), a simple method that improves the distance-awareness ability of modern DNNs, by adding a weight normalization step during training and replacing the output layer with a Gaussian process. On a suite of vision and language understanding tasks and on modern architectures (Wide-ResNet and BERT), SNGP is competitive with deep ensembles in prediction, calibration and out-of-domain detection, and outperforms the other single-model approaches.

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.2006.10108

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?

  • Simpler deterministic approaches often compromise accuracy.

    “Conversely, simpler deterministic approaches often compromise accuracy [12].”

    From A cascade framework for on-device uncertainty-aware event detection on microcontrollers (2026) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Broader Impact section (p. 10) reports that the paper’s simple deterministic method improved calibration and out-of-distribution detection while maintaining a similar level of accuracy. The Conclusion (p. 9) likewise describes it as competitive with a deep ensemble in prediction. Rather than presenting accuracy loss as the trade-off for its simpler approach, the paper reports preserving accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

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

References 84 · Cited by 237

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. [1][1] S. An, F. Boussaid, and M. Bennamoun. How Can Deep Rectifier Networks Achieve Linear Separability and Preserve Distances? In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 514-523, June 2015. ISSN: 1938-7228 Section: Machine Learning. -
  2. [2][2] C. Anil, J. Lucas, and R. Grosse. Sorting Out Lipschitz Function Approximation. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 291-301, May 2019. ISSN: 1938-7228 Section: Machine Learning. -
  3. [3][3] P. Bartlett, S. Evans, and P. Long. Representing smooth functions as compositions of nearidentity functions with implications for deep network optimization. arXiv , 2018. -
  4. [4][4] P. L. Bartlett and M. H. Wegkamp. Classification with a Reject Option using a Hinge Loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 9(Aug):1823-1840, 2008. -
  5. [5][5] J. Behrmann, W. Grathwohl, R. T. Q. Chen, D. Duvenaud, and J.-H. Jacobsen. Invertible Residual Networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 573-582, May 2019. ISSN: 1938-7228 Section: Machine Learning. -
  6. [6][6] A. Bendale and T. E. Boult. Towards Open Set Deep Networks. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016. -
  7. [7][7] J. O. Berger. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2 edition, 1985. -
  8. [8][8] A. Blum. Random Projection, Margins, Kernels, and Feature-Selection. In C. Saunders, M. Grobelnik, S. Gunn, and J. Shawe-Taylor, editors, Subspace, Latent Structure and Feature Selection , Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 52-68, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer. -
  9. [9][9] J. Bradshaw, A. G. d. G. Matthews, and Z. Ghahramani. Adversarial Examples, Uncertainty, and Transfer Testing Robustness in Gaussian Process Hybrid Deep Networks. arXiv:1707.02476 [stat] , July 2017. arXiv: 1707.02476. - · arXiv
  10. [10][10] J. Br¨ ocker. Reliability, sufficiency, and the decomposition of proper scores. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography , 135(643):1512-1519, 2009. -
  11. [11][11] R. Calandra, J. Peters, C. E. Rasmussen, and M. P. Deisenroth. Manifold Gaussian Processes for regression. 2016 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , 2016. -
  12. [12][12] D. Cer, M. Diab, E. Agirre, I. Lopez-Gazpio, and L. Specia. SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity Multilingual and Crosslingual Focused Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2017) , pages 1-14, Vancouver, Canada, Aug. 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  13. [13][13] A. Chernodub and D. Nowicki. Norm-preserving Orthogonal Permutation Linear Unit Activation Functions (OPLU). arXiv:1604.02313 [cs] , Jan. 2017. arXiv: 1604.02313. - · arXiv
  14. [14][14] C. Cortes, M. Mohri, and A. Rostamizadeh. Learning Non-Linear Combinations of Kernels. In Y. Bengio, D. Schuurmans, J. D. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, and A. Culotta, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22 , pages 396-404. Curran Associates, Inc., 2009. -
  15. [16][16] G. P. Dehaene. A deterministic and computable Bernstein-von Mises theorem. ArXiv , 2019. -
  16. [17][17] J. S. Denker and Y. LeCun. Transforming Neural-Net Output Levels to Probability Distributions. In R. P. Lippmann, J. E. Moody, and D. S. Touretzky, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3 , pages 853-859. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1991. -
  17. [19][19] L. Dinh, D. Krueger, and Y. Bengio. NICE: Non-linear Independent Components Estimation. arXiv:1410.8516 [cs] , Oct. 2014. arXiv: 1410.8516. - · arXiv
  18. [20][20] L. Dinh, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and S. Bengio. Density estimation using Real NVP. arXiv:1605.08803 [cs, stat] , May 2016. arXiv: 1605.08803. - · arXiv
  19. [21][21] M. Dusenberry, G. Jerfel, Y. Wen, Y. Ma, J. Snoek, K. Heller, B. Lakshminarayanan, and D. Tran. Efficient and Scalable Bayesian Neural Nets with Rank-1 Factors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , 1, 2020. -
  20. [23][23] D. Freedman. Wald Lecture: On the Bernstein-von Mises theorem with infinite-dimensional parameters. The Annals of Statistics , 27(4):1119-1141, Aug. 1999. -
  21. [25][25] T. Gneiting and A. E. Raftery. Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 102(477):359-378, Mar. 2007. -
  22. [27][27] P. D. Gr ˜ AŒnwald and A. P. Dawid. Game theory, maximum entropy, minimum discrepancy and robust Bayesian decision theory. Annals of Statistics , 32(4):1367-1433, Aug. 2004. Publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics. -
  23. [28][28] I. Gulrajani, F. Ahmed, M. Arjovsky, V. Dumoulin, and A. Courville. Improved training of wasserstein GANs. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS'17, pages 5769-5779, Long Beach, California, USA, Dec. 2017. Curran Associates Inc. -
  24. [31][31] R. E. Harang and E. M. Rudd. Principled Uncertainty Estimation for Deep Neural Networks, 2018. Library Catalog: www.semanticscholar.org. -
  25. [32][32] M. Hauser and A. Ray. Principles of Riemannian Geometry in Neural Networks. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pages 2807-2816. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. -
  26. [33][33] M. Hein, M. Andriushchenko, and J. Bitterwolf. Why ReLU Networks Yield High-Confidence Predictions Far Away From the Training Data and How to Mitigate the Problem. pages 41-50, 2019. -
  27. [35][35] D. Hendrycks, K. Lee, and M. Mazeika. Using Pre-Training Can Improve Model Robustness and Uncertainty. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2712-2721, May 2019. ISSN: 1938-7228 Section: Machine Learning. -
  28. [36][36] D. Hendrycks*, N. Mu*, E. D. Cubuk, B. Zoph, J. Gilmer, and B. Lakshminarayanan. AugMix: A Simple Method to Improve Robustness and Uncertainty under Data Shift. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. -
  29. [40][40] M. E. E. Khan, A. Immer, E. Abedi, and M. Korzepa. Approximate Inference Turns Deep Networks into Gaussian Processes. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d. Alch ˜ A©Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 , pages 3094-3104. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. -
  30. [41][41] A. Kristiadi, M. Hein, and P. Hennig. Being Bayesian, Even Just a Bit, Fixes Overconfidence in ReLU Networks. arXiv:2002.10118 [cs, stat] , Feb. 2020. arXiv: 2002.10118. - · arXiv
  31. [42][42] B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell. Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , pages 6402-6413. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. -
  32. [43][43] J. Landes. Probabilism, entropies and strictly proper scoring rules. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning , 63:1-21, Aug. 2015. -
  33. [44][44] S. Larson, A. Mahendran, J. J. Peper, C. Clarke, A. Lee, P. Hill, J. K. Kummerfeld, K. Leach, M. A. Laurenzano, L. Tang, and J. Mars. An Evaluation Dataset for Intent Classification and Out-of-Scope Prediction. arXiv:1909.02027 [cs] , Sept. 2019. arXiv: 1909.02027. - · arXiv
  34. [46][46] L. LeCam. Convergence of Estimates Under Dimensionality Restrictions. The Annals of Statistics , 1(1):38-53, Jan. 1973. -
  35. [47][47] K. Lee, H. Lee, K. Lee, and J. Shin. Training Confidence-calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018. -
  36. [48][48] D. Macedo, T. I. Ren, C. Zanchettin, A. L. I. Oliveira, A. Tapp, and T. Ludermir. Isotropic Maximization Loss and Entropic Score: Fast, Accurate, Scalable, Unexposed, Turnkey, and Native Neural Networks Out-of-Distribution Detection. arXiv:1908.05569 [cs, stat] , Feb. 2020. arXiv: 1908.05569. - · arXiv
  37. [49][49] D. J. C. MacKay. A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Computation , 4(3):448-472, May 1992. Number: 3 Publisher: MIT Press. -
  38. [50][50] A. Malinin and M. Gales. Predictive Uncertainty Estimation via Prior Networks. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 , pages 7047-7058. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. -
  39. [51][51] A. Malinin and M. Gales. Prior Networks for Detection of Adversarial Attacks. arXiv:1812.02575 [cs, stat] , Dec. 2018. arXiv: 1812.02575. - · arXiv
  40. [52][52] A. Meinke and M. Hein. Towards neural networks that provably know when they don't know. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. -
  41. [54][54] T. Miyato, T. Kataoka, M. Koyama, and Y. Yoshida. Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018. -
  42. [55][55] Y. Netzer, T. Wang, A. Coates, A. Bissacco, B. Wu, and A. Y. Ng. Reading Digits in Natural Images with Unsupervised Feature Learning. In NIPS Workshop on Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning 2011 , 2011. -
  43. [56][56] J. Nixon, M. W. Dusenberry, L. Zhang, G. Jerfel, and D. Tran. Measuring calibration in deep learning. In CVPR Workshop , 2019. -
  44. [57][57] M. Panov and V. Spokoiny. Finite Sample Bernstein von Mises Theorem for Semiparametric Problems. Bayesian Analysis , 10(3):665-710, Sept. 2015. -
  45. [58][58] M. Parry, A. P. Dawid, and S. Lauritzen. Proper local scoring rules. Annals of Statistics , 40(1):561-592, Feb. 2012. Publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics. -
  46. [60][60] A. Rahimi and B. Recht. Random Features for Large-Scale Kernel Machines. In J. C. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, and S. T. Roweis, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 20 , pages 1177-1184. Curran Associates, Inc., 2008. -
  47. [62][62] C. Riquelme, G. Tucker, and J. Snoek. Deep Bayesian Bandits Showdown: An Empirical Comparison of Bayesian Deep Networks for Thompson Sampling. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018. -
  48. [63][63] H. Ritter, A. Botev, and D. Barber. A Scalable Laplace Approximation for Neural Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018. -
  49. [64][64] F. Rousseau, L. Drumetz, and R. Fablet. Residual Networks as Flows of Diffeomorphisms. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision , 62(3):365-375, Apr. 2020. -
  50. [65][65] W. Ruan, X. Huang, and M. Kwiatkowska. Reachability analysis of deep neural networks with provable guarantees. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI'18, pages 2651-2659, Stockholm, Sweden, July 2018. AAAI Press. -
  51. [66][66] W. J. Scheirer, L. P. Jain, and T. E. Boult. Probability Models for Open Set Recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 36(11):2317-2324, Nov. 2014. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. -
  52. [67][67] M. O. Searcod. Metric Spaces . Springer London, London, 2007 edition edition, Aug. 2006. -
  53. [68][68] M. Sensoy, L. Kaplan, and M. Kandemir. Evidential Deep Learning to Quantify Classification Uncertainty. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 , pages 3179-3189. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. -
  54. [69][69] L. Shu, H. Xu, and B. Liu. DOC: Deep Open Classification of Text Documents. arXiv:1709.08716 [cs] , Sept. 2017. arXiv: 1709.08716. - · arXiv
  55. [70][70] J. Snoek, O. Rippel, K. Swersky, R. Kiros, N. Satish, N. Sundaram, M. M. A. Patwary, Prabhat, and R. P. Adams. Scalable Bayesian Optimization Using Deep Neural Networks. arXiv:1502.05700 [stat] , Feb. 2015. arXiv: 1502.05700. - · arXiv
  56. [71][71] J. Sokolic, R. Giryes, G. Sapiro, and M. R. D. Rodrigues. Robust Large Margin Deep Neural Networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , 2017. -
  57. [72][72] N. Tagasovska and D. Lopez-Paz. Single-Model Uncertainties for Deep Learning. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d. Alch ˜ A©-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 , pages 6417-6428. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. -
  58. [73][73] L. Tierney, R. E. Kass, and J. B. Kadane. Approximate Marginal Densities of Nonlinear Functions. Biometrika , 76(3):425-433, 1989. Publisher: [Oxford University Press, Biometrika Trust]. -
  59. [74][74] G.-L. Tran, E. V. Bonilla, J. Cunningham, P. Michiardi, and M. Filippone. Calibrating Deep Convolutional Gaussian Processes. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 1554-1563, Apr. 2019. ISSN: 1938-7228 Section: Machine Learning. -
  60. [75][75] Y. Tsuzuku, I. Sato, and M. Sugiyama. Lipschitz-Margin Training: Scalable Certification of Perturbation Invariance for Deep Neural Networks. In S. Bengio, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 , pages 6541-6550. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. -
  61. [76][76] B. van Aken, J. Risch, R. Krestel, and A. Loser. Challenges for Toxic Comment Classification: An In-Depth Error Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online (ALW2) , pages 33-42, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  62. [77][77] J. van Amersfoort, L. Smith, Y. W. Teh, and Y. Gal. Simple and Scalable Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation Using a Single Deep Deterministic Neural Network. arXiv:2003.02037 [cs, stat] , Mar. 2020. arXiv: 2003.02037. - · arXiv
  63. [78][78] N. Vedula, N. Lipka, P. Maneriker, and S. Parthasarathy. Towards Open Intent Discovery for Conversational Text. arXiv:1904.08524 [cs] , Apr. 2019. arXiv: 1904.08524. - · arXiv
  64. [79][79] Y. Wen, D. Tran, and J. Ba. BatchEnsemble: an Alternative Approach to Efficient Ensemble and Lifelong Learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. -
  65. [80][80] T.-W. Weng, H. Zhang, P.-Y. Chen, J. Yi, D. Su, Y. Gao, C.-J. Hsieh, and L. Daniel. Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks: An Extreme Value Theory Approach. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018. -
  66. [81][81] A. G. Wilson, Z. Hu, R. Salakhutdinov, and E. P. Xing. Stochastic Variational Deep Kernel Learning. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS'16, pages 2594-2602, USA, 2016. Curran Associates Inc. -
  67. [82][82] M.-A. Yaghoub-Zadeh-Fard, B. Benatallah, F. Casati, M. Chai Barukh, and S. Zamanirad. User Utterance Acquisition for Training Task-Oriented Bots: A Review of Challenges, Techniques and Opportunities. IEEE Internet Computing , pages 1-1, 2020. Conference Name: IEEE Internet Computing. -
  68. [84][84] Y. Zheng, G. Chen, and M. Huang. Out-of-Domain Detection for Natural Language Understanding in Dialog Systems. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , 28:1198-1209, 2020. Conference Name: IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing.

Authors
Liu, J. Z., Lin, Z., Padhy, S., Tran, D., Bedrax-Weiss, T., & Lakshminarayanan, B.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
33
Pages
7498-7512
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2006.10108
arXiv
2006.10108
OpenAlex
W3035898727
Cited by
237
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
uncertainty estimation, spectral normalization, weight normalization, Bayesian neural networks, ensemble deep learning, out-of-distribution detection, calibration, visual task, language comprehension

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