PreprintCited by 11Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference

Calibration of Model Uncertainty for Dropout Variational Inference

Open access
Laves, Max-Heinrich, Ihler, Sontje, Kortmann, Karl-Philipp, Ortmaier, Tobias·2020·arXiv

Abstract

The model uncertainty obtained by variational Bayesian inference with Monte Carlo dropout is prone to miscalibration. In this paper, different logit scaling methods are extended to dropout variational inference to recalibrate model uncertainty. Expected uncertainty calibration error (UCE) is presented as a metric to measure miscalibration. The effectiveness of recalibration is evaluated on CIFAR-10/100 and SVHN for recent CNN architectures. Experimental results show that logit scaling considerably reduce miscalibration by means of UCE. Well-calibrated uncertainty enables reliable rejection of uncertain predictions and robust detection of out-of-distribution data.

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.2006.11584

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Having a proper uncertainty method can assist in having better medical image analysis performance.

    “As a result, they concluded that having a proper uncertainty method can assist having a better medical image analysis performance.”
  • The proposed UMCT method outperformed the other applied methods on the same datasets.

    “According to the obtained results, the proposed UMCT method outperformed the other applied methods to the same datasets.”

    From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [505]

    Section 4.1 (p. 6) describes UCE and classwise UCE metrics, and Table 1 (p. 7) compares calibration methods; neither reports results for a UMCT method. Searches for “UMCT” and for the claimed comparison found no passage addressing whether UMCT outperformed other methods on the same datasets. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bishop, C. M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning . Springer, 2006. ISBN 978-0-387-31073-2.
  2. Gal, Y. Uncertainty in Deep Learning . PhD thesis, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 2016.
  3. Kull, M., Nieto, M. P., Kängsepp, M., Silva Filho, T., Song, H., and Flach, P. Beyond temperature scaling: Obtaining wellcalibrated multi-class probabilities with dirichlet calibration. In NeurIPS , pp. 12295-12305, 2019.
  4. Xiao, T. Z., Gomez, A. N., and Gal, Y. Wat heb je gezegd? detecting out-of-distribution translations with variational transformers. In Bayesian Deep Learning Workshop (NeurIPS) , 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laves, M.-H., Ihler, S., Kortmann, K.-P., & Ortmaier, T.
Affiliations
Leibniz University Hannover (DE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3036633009
Cited by
11
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • 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
uncertainty calibration, Monte Carlo dropout, variational inference, out-of-distribution detection, convolutional neural networks, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, SVHN

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