On the Calibration of Epistemic Uncertainty: Principles, Paradoxes and Conflictual Loss

Overview

• The paper explores the challenges in calibrating epistemic uncertainty (i.e., the uncertainty about the model's parameters) produced by various deep learning techniques, such as Deep Ensembles, Bayesian Deep Networks, and Evidential Deep Networks.
• The authors find that despite theoretical expectations, measures of epistemic uncertainty often fail to behave as expected, sometimes showing trends opposite to what is expected.
• The authors propose a regularization function called "conflictual loss" for deep ensembles, which helps restore the expected behavior of epistemic uncertainty without sacrificing performance or calibration.

Plain English Explanation

Uncertainty is an important concept in machine learning, as it helps us understand how confident a model is in its predictions. There are two main types of uncertainty: aleatoric uncertainty, which is the inherent randomness in the data, and epistemic uncertainty, which is the uncertainty about the model's parameters.

While aleatoric uncertainty has been well-studied, the same cannot be said for epistemic uncertainty as produced by techniques like Deep Ensembles, Bayesian Deep Networks, and Evidential Deep Networks. This form of uncertainty is difficult to calibrate, as it depends on the choice of prior distribution, which can vary.

Nonetheless, there are two formal requirements that epistemic uncertainty should satisfy: it should decrease as the training dataset gets larger, and it should increase as the model's expressiveness grows. However, the authors' experiments show that on several datasets and models, measures of epistemic uncertainty often violate these requirements, sometimes even exhibiting the opposite trend.

These paradoxes between expectation and reality raise questions about the true utility of epistemic uncertainty as estimated by these models. The authors suggest that the disagreement is likely due to a poor approximation of the posterior distribution, rather than a flaw in the measure itself.

Based on this observation, the authors propose a new regularization function called "conflictual loss" for deep ensembles. This function helps restore the expected behavior of epistemic uncertainty, without sacrificing the model's performance or calibration.

Technical Explanation

The paper examines the challenges in calibrating epistemic uncertainty, which is the uncertainty about a model's parameters. The authors focus on three deep learning techniques that produce epistemic uncertainty: Deep Ensembles, Bayesian Deep Networks, and Evidential Deep Networks.

The authors find that despite theoretical expectations, measures of epistemic uncertainty often fail to behave as expected. Specifically, they should decrease as the training dataset gets larger and increase as the model's expressiveness grows. However, the authors' experiments show that this is not always the case, with some measures exhibiting the opposite trend.

To address this issue, the authors propose a new regularization function called "conflictual loss" for deep ensembles. This function is designed to restore the expected behavior of epistemic uncertainty without sacrificing the model's performance or calibration, as measured by proper scoring rules and other metrics.

The authors argue that the disagreement between expectation and reality is likely due to a poor approximation of the posterior distribution, rather than a flaw in the measure of epistemic uncertainty itself. By incorporating the "conflictual loss" function, the authors demonstrate that it is possible to align the observed behavior of epistemic uncertainty with the expected theoretical requirements.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important questions about the reliability and utility of epistemic uncertainty estimates produced by popular deep learning techniques. While the authors propose a potential solution in the form of the "conflictual loss" function, it is worth considering some potential limitations and areas for further research.

One concern is the dependence of epistemic uncertainty on the choice of prior distribution, as mentioned in the paper. The authors acknowledge that a variety of prior choices exist, and the appropriateness of these choices may vary across different datasets and problem domains. Further research could explore more robust and generalizable methods for selecting priors that lead to reliable epistemic uncertainty estimates.

Additionally, the paper focuses on a specific set of deep learning techniques, namely Deep Ensembles, Bayesian Deep Networks, and Evidential Deep Networks. It would be valuable to investigate whether the observed issues with epistemic uncertainty calibration extend to other uncertainty quantification methods, such as Monte Carlo dropout or deep kernel learning. A more comprehensive analysis across a broader range of techniques could provide deeper insights into the fundamental challenges in estimating epistemic uncertainty.

Finally, while the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of the "conflictual loss" function in restoring the expected behavior of epistemic uncertainty, it would be informative to explore the practical implications of this approach. For example, how does the improved epistemic uncertainty calibration impact downstream tasks, such as active learning or safety-critical decision-making? Further empirical studies in these areas could help establish the true utility of the proposed solution.

Conclusion

The paper highlights the challenges in calibrating epistemic uncertainty, a crucial aspect of uncertainty quantification in deep learning. The authors' findings suggest that commonly used techniques, such as Deep Ensembles, Bayesian Deep Networks, and Evidential Deep Networks, often produce epistemic uncertainty estimates that violate theoretical expectations, raising doubts about their reliability and utility.

To address this issue, the authors propose a novel regularization function called "conflictual loss" for deep ensembles, which helps restore the expected behavior of epistemic uncertainty without sacrificing performance or calibration. This work represents an important step towards more robust and trustworthy uncertainty quantification in deep learning, with potential implications for a wide range of applications that rely on accurate uncertainty estimates.