arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2106.03395stat.MLcs.LG
收藏

如何评估机器学习中回归的不确定性估计?

How to Evaluate Uncertainty Estimates in Machine Learning for Regression?

Radboud University(拉德堡德大学);Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud University(拉德堡德大学计算与信息科学学院)

Laurens Sluijterman, Eric Cator, Tom Heskes

AI总结:

本文指出机器学习回归中评估不确定性估计的对数似然和预测区间两种方法存在严重缺陷,并提出一种基于模拟的测试方法以解决这些问题。

摘要:

随着神经网络变得越来越流行,对伴随的不确定性估计的需求也在增加。目前有两种主要方法来测试这些估计的质量。大多数方法输出密度。可以通过在测试集上评估它们的对数似然来进行比较。其他方法直接输出预测区间。这些方法通常通过检查落在相应预测区间内的测试点的比例来进行测试。直觉上,这两种方法似乎都合乎逻辑。然而,我们通过理论论证和模拟证明,这两种评估不确定性估计质量的方式都存在严重缺陷。首先,这两种方法都无法理清共同产生预测不确定性的各个独立组件,使得难以评估这些组件估计的质量。其次,更好的对数似然并不能保证更好的预测区间,而这正是这些方法在实践中经常被用于的目的。此外,当前直接测试预测区间的方法还有其他缺陷。我们展示了为什么在单个测试集上测试预测或置信区间从根本上是存在缺陷的。充其量,它只测量了边缘覆盖率,隐含地平均了过度自信和不够自信的预测。一个更理想的属性是逐点覆盖率,要求每个预测都有正确的覆盖率。我们通过实际例子证明,这些效应可能导致基于预测不确定性而偏好某种方法,而该方法的置信或预测区间却具有不良行为。最后,我们提出了一种基于模拟的测试方法,解决了这些问题,同时仍然允许不同方法之间进行轻松比较。

英文摘要:

As neural networks become more popular, the need for accompanying uncertainty estimates increases. There are currently two main approaches to test the quality of these estimates. Most methods output a density. They can be compared by evaluating their loglikelihood on a test set. Other methods output a prediction interval directly. These methods are often tested by examining the fraction of test points that fall inside the corresponding prediction intervals. Intuitively both approaches seem logical. However, we demonstrate through both theoretical arguments and simulations that both ways of evaluating the quality of uncertainty estimates have serious flaws. Firstly, both approaches cannot disentangle the separate components that jointly create the predictive uncertainty, making it difficult to evaluate the quality of the estimates of these components. Secondly, a better loglikelihood does not guarantee better prediction intervals, which is what the methods are often used for in practice. Moreover, the current approach to test prediction intervals directly has additional flaws. We show why it is fundamentally flawed to test a prediction or confidence interval on a single test set. At best, marginal coverage is measured, implicitly averaging out overconfident and underconfident predictions. A much more desirable property is pointwise coverage, requiring the correct coverage for each prediction. We demonstrate through practical examples that these effects can result in favoring a method, based on the predictive uncertainty, that has undesirable behaviour of the confidence or prediction intervals. Finally, we propose a simulation-based testing approach that addresses these problems while still allowing easy comparison between different methods.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑