Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Learning
2405.20550
0
0
🤿
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Provides a comprehensive and statistically consistent approach to quantify uncertainty in deep learning models
- Identifies four key sources of uncertainty: new input data, training and testing data, weight vectors, and the neural network itself
- Demonstrates how to systematically quantify each source of uncertainty using Bayes' Theorem and conditional probability densities
- Introduces a fast and practical method to incorporate and combine all sources of uncertainty
Plain English Explanation
This research paper presents a comprehensive approach to quantify uncertainty in deep learning models. Deep learning models, while powerful, are not perfect predictors, and there are several sources of uncertainty that can impact their performance. The researchers identify four key sources of uncertainty:
- New input data: Uncertainty in the data used to make predictions with the model.
- Training and testing data: Uncertainty in the data used to train and evaluate the model.
- Weight vectors: Uncertainty in the internal parameters of the neural network.
- The neural network itself: Uncertainty due to the model's limitations as an imperfect predictor.
Using Bayes' Theorem and conditional probability densities, the researchers demonstrate how each of these sources of uncertainty can be systematically quantified. They also introduce a fast and practical method to combine all of these sources of uncertainty for the first time.
To illustrate their approach, the researchers apply it to quantify errors in cloud autoconversion rates, which were predicted using an artificial neural network trained on aircraft cloud probe measurements. They found that the dominant source of uncertainty was in the training and testing data, followed by uncertainty in the input data, the trained neural network, and the weight vectors.
The researchers discuss the usefulness of this methodology for machine learning practice, and how it can help make deep learning models less sensitive to input data that falls outside of the training data set by incorporating uncertainty in the training data.
Technical Explanation
The researchers present a comprehensive and statistically consistent approach to quantify uncertainty in deep learning models. They identify four key sources of uncertainty:
- New input data: Uncertainty in the data used to make predictions with the model.
- Training and testing data: Uncertainty in the data used to train and evaluate the model.
- Weight vectors: Uncertainty in the internal parameters of the neural network.
- The neural network itself: Uncertainty due to the model's limitations as an imperfect predictor.
Using Bayes' Theorem and conditional probability densities, the researchers demonstrate how each of these sources of uncertainty can be systematically quantified. They also introduce a fast and practical method to combine all of these sources of uncertainty for the first time.
To illustrate their approach, the researchers apply it to quantify errors in cloud autoconversion rates, which were predicted using an artificial neural network trained on aircraft cloud probe measurements in the Azores and a stochastic collection equation formulated as a two-moment bin model. They found that the dominant source of uncertainty was in the training and testing data, followed by uncertainty in the input data, the trained neural network, and the weight vectors.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several caveats and limitations in their work. They note that their method relies on the availability of high-quality data to quantify the various sources of uncertainty, which may not always be the case in practice. Additionally, the computational complexity of their approach may limit its scalability to very large-scale deep learning models.
While the researchers demonstrate the effectiveness of their method on a specific example of cloud autoconversion rate prediction, it would be valuable to see the approach applied to a broader range of deep learning tasks and datasets to further evaluate its generalizability and robustness.
Furthermore, the researchers do not explore the potential trade-offs between model accuracy and uncertainty quantification, which could be an important consideration in real-world applications. It would be interesting to see how their method performs compared to other uncertainty quantification techniques, and how the choice of method might impact the overall performance and decision-making process.
Conclusion
This research paper presents a comprehensive and statistically consistent approach to quantify uncertainty in deep learning models. By identifying and systematically quantifying the four key sources of uncertainty, the researchers provide a valuable tool for practitioners to better understand the limitations and reliability of their deep learning models.
The introduction of a fast and practical method to combine all sources of uncertainty is a significant contribution, as it allows for more informed decision-making and potentially more robust deep learning models that are less sensitive to out-of-distribution data. While the approach has some limitations, this work represents an important step forward in the field of uncertainty quantification for deep learning.
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
🤿
A Comprehensive Survey on Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Learning
Wenchong He, Zhe Jiang
0
0
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.
4/11/2024
Unified Uncertainties: Combining Input, Data and Model Uncertainty into a Single Formulation
Matias Valdenegro-Toro, Ivo Pascal de Jong, Marco Zullich
0
0
Modelling uncertainty in Machine Learning models is essential for achieving safe and reliable predictions. Most research on uncertainty focuses on output uncertainty (predictions), but minimal attention is paid to uncertainty at inputs. We propose a method for propagating uncertainty in the inputs through a Neural Network that is simultaneously able to estimate input, data, and model uncertainty. Our results show that this propagation of input uncertainty results in a more stable decision boundary even under large amounts of input noise than comparatively simple Monte Carlo sampling. Additionally, we discuss and demonstrate that input uncertainty, when propagated through the model, results in model uncertainty at the outputs. The explicit incorporation of input uncertainty may be beneficial in situations where the amount of input uncertainty is known, though good datasets for this are still needed.
6/28/2024
🤿
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