A Comprehensive Survey on Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Learning
2302.13425
0
0
🤿
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) have achieved tremendous success in making accurate predictions for computer vision, natural language processing, as well as science and engineering domains. However, it is also well-recognized that DNNs sometimes make unexpected, incorrect, but overconfident predictions. This can cause serious consequences in high-stake applications, such as autonomous driving, medical diagnosis, and disaster response. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) aims to estimate the confidence of DNN predictions beyond prediction accuracy. In recent years, many UQ methods have been developed for DNNs. It is of great practical value to systematically categorize these UQ methods and compare their advantages and disadvantages. However, existing surveys mostly focus on categorizing UQ methodologies from a neural network architecture perspective or a Bayesian perspective and ignore the source of uncertainty that each methodology can incorporate, making it difficult to select an appropriate UQ method in practice. To fill the gap, this paper presents a systematic taxonomy of UQ methods for DNNs based on the types of uncertainty sources (data uncertainty versus model uncertainty). We summarize the advantages and disadvantages of methods in each category. We show how our taxonomy of UQ methodologies can potentially help guide the choice of UQ method in different machine learning problems (e.g., active learning, robustness, and reinforcement learning). We also identify current research gaps and propose several future research directions.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Deep neural networks (DNNs) have achieved great success in various domains, but they can also make unexpected, incorrect, and overconfident predictions.
- This can be problematic in high-stakes applications like autonomous driving, medical diagnosis, and disaster response.
- Uncertainty quantification (UQ) aims to estimate the confidence of DNN predictions beyond just prediction accuracy.
- Many UQ methods have been developed for DNNs, but existing surveys focus on categorizing them from a neural network architecture or Bayesian perspective, ignoring the sources of uncertainty.
Plain English Explanation
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are a type of artificial intelligence that has become incredibly good at tasks like recognizing objects in images, understanding human language, and making predictions in science and engineering. However, these powerful AI systems can sometimes make mistakes that seem very confident, even when they're wrong. This can be a big problem in high-stakes situations, like self-driving cars, medical diagnoses, and disaster response, where incorrect predictions could have serious consequences.
To address this issue, researchers have developed techniques called "uncertainty quantification" (UQ) to help DNNs provide a better sense of how confident they are in their predictions. Instead of just giving a single answer, UQ methods can estimate the level of uncertainty or doubt in the DNN's output. This extra information can be very useful for making sure these AI systems are used safely and responsibly.
The paper we're looking at today presents a systematic way of categorizing the different UQ methods based on the types of uncertainty they can handle. Some methods focus on uncertainty due to the training data itself, while others deal with uncertainty in the model parameters or structure. By understanding these different sources of uncertainty, researchers and practitioners can better choose the right UQ technique for their specific machine learning problem, whether it's active learning, robustness, or reinforcement learning.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a systematic taxonomy of uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for deep neural networks (DNNs) based on the types of uncertainty sources: data uncertainty and model uncertainty.
Data uncertainty refers to the inherent variability or noise in the training data, which can lead to DNN predictions with high uncertainty. This could be due to measurement errors, incomplete or biased data, or ambiguous labels. Methods that address data uncertainty include dropout, deep ensembles, and Gaussian processes.
Model uncertainty, on the other hand, arises from the limitations of the DNN architecture and training process. This includes uncertainty in the model parameters, such as the weights and biases, as well as uncertainty in the model structure, such as the number and type of layers. Bayesian neural networks and Monte Carlo dropout are examples of methods that can capture model uncertainty.
The paper suggests that understanding the sources of uncertainty can help guide the choice of UQ method for different machine learning problems. For instance, active learning may benefit more from data uncertainty quantification, while robustness and reinforcement learning may require a combination of data and model uncertainty quantification.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable taxonomy for categorizing the various UQ methods for DNNs, which can help researchers and practitioners select the appropriate technique for their specific applications. However, the authors acknowledge that their taxonomy is not exhaustive, and there may be other sources of uncertainty that are not covered, such as uncertainty in the context of learning large language models.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into the practical considerations and trade-offs of implementing these UQ methods, such as computational complexity, scalability, and ease of use. Further research may be needed to provide more comprehensive guidance on selecting and deploying UQ techniques in real-world scenarios.
Conclusion
The paper presents a systematic taxonomy of uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for deep neural networks (DNNs) based on the sources of uncertainty: data uncertainty and model uncertainty. This categorization can help researchers and practitioners choose the appropriate UQ technique for their specific machine learning problems, such as active learning, robustness, and reinforcement learning. By incorporating UQ, DNNs can provide more reliable and trustworthy predictions, which is crucial for high-stakes applications like autonomous driving, medical diagnosis, and disaster response.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤿
Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Learning
Peter Jan van Leeuwen, J. Christine Chiu, C. Kevin Yang
0
0
A complete and statistically consistent uncertainty quantification for deep learning is provided, including the sources of uncertainty arising from (1) the new input data, (2) the training and testing data (3) the weight vectors of the neural network, and (4) the neural network because it is not a perfect predictor. Using Bayes Theorem and conditional probability densities, we demonstrate how each uncertainty source can be systematically quantified. We also introduce a fast and practical way to incorporate and combine all sources of errors for the first time. For illustration, the new method is applied to quantify errors in cloud autoconversion rates, predicted from an artificial neural network that was trained by aircraft cloud probe measurements in the Azores and the stochastic collection equation formulated as a two-moment bin model. For this specific example, the output uncertainty arising from uncertainty in the training and testing data is dominant, followed by uncertainty in the input data, in the trained neural network, and uncertainty in the weights. We discuss the usefulness of the methodology for machine learning practice, and how, through inclusion of uncertainty in the training data, the new methodology is less sensitive to input data that falls outside of the training data set.
6/3/2024
🤿
A Structured Review of Literature on Uncertainty in Machine Learning & Deep Learning
Fahimeh Fakour, Ali Mosleh, Ramin Ramezani
0
0
The adaptation and use of Machine Learning (ML) in our daily lives has led to concerns in lack of transparency, privacy, reliability, among others. As a result, we are seeing research in niche areas such as interpretability, causality, bias and fairness, and reliability. In this survey paper, we focus on a critical concern for adaptation of ML in risk-sensitive applications, namely understanding and quantifying uncertainty. Our paper approaches this topic in a structured way, providing a review of the literature in the various facets that uncertainty is enveloped in the ML process. We begin by defining uncertainty and its categories (e.g., aleatoric and epistemic), understanding sources of uncertainty (e.g., data and model), and how uncertainty can be assessed in terms of uncertainty quantification techniques (Ensembles, Bayesian Neural Networks, etc.). As part of our assessment and understanding of uncertainty in the ML realm, we cover metrics for uncertainty quantification for a single sample, dataset, and metrics for accuracy of the uncertainty estimation itself. This is followed by discussions on calibration (model and uncertainty), and decision making under uncertainty. Thus, we provide a more complete treatment of uncertainty: from the sources of uncertainty to the decision-making process. We have focused the review of uncertainty quantification methods on Deep Learning (DL), while providing the necessary background for uncertainty discussion within ML in general. Key contributions in this review are broadening the scope of uncertainty discussion, as well as an updated review of uncertainty quantification methods in DL.
6/4/2024
🧠
Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification For Pre-trained Neural Network
Hanjing Wang, Qiang Ji
0
0
Epistemic uncertainty quantification (UQ) identifies where models lack knowledge. Traditional UQ methods, often based on Bayesian neural networks, are not suitable for pre-trained non-Bayesian models. Our study addresses quantifying epistemic uncertainty for any pre-trained model, which does not need the original training data or model modifications and can ensure broad applicability regardless of network architectures or training techniques. Specifically, we propose a gradient-based approach to assess epistemic uncertainty, analyzing the gradients of outputs relative to model parameters, and thereby indicating necessary model adjustments to accurately represent the inputs. We first explore theoretical guarantees of gradient-based methods for epistemic UQ, questioning the view that this uncertainty is only calculable through differences between multiple models. We further improve gradient-driven UQ by using class-specific weights for integrating gradients and emphasizing distinct contributions from neural network layers. Additionally, we enhance UQ accuracy by combining gradient and perturbation methods to refine the gradients. We evaluate our approach on out-of-distribution detection, uncertainty calibration, and active learning, demonstrating its superiority over current state-of-the-art UQ methods for pre-trained models.
4/17/2024
🎯
Uncertainty Quantification on Graph Learning: A Survey
Chao Chen, Chenghua Guo, Rui Xu, Xiangwen Liao, Xi Zhang, Sihong Xie, Hui Xiong, Philip Yu
0
0
Graphical models, including Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Probabilistic Graphical Models (PGMs), have demonstrated their exceptional capabilities across numerous fields. These models necessitate effective uncertainty quantification to ensure reliable decision-making amid the challenges posed by model training discrepancies and unpredictable testing scenarios. This survey examines recent works that address uncertainty quantification within the model architectures, training, and inference of GNNs and PGMs. We aim to provide an overview of the current landscape of uncertainty in graphical models by organizing the recent methods into uncertainty representation and handling. By summarizing state-of-the-art methods, this survey seeks to deepen the understanding of uncertainty quantification in graphical models, thereby increasing their effectiveness and safety in critical applications.
4/24/2024