PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Escaping the Sample Trap: Fast and Accurate Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation with Pairwise-Distance Estimators

Lucas Berry, David Meger

probabilistic methodsCalibration & Uncertainty QuantificationActive LearningEnsemble MethodsMultimodal LearningProbabilistic Methods
63.20100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
54.00100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
66.90100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — This work presents a novel approach, using pairwise-distance estimators (PaiDEs), for efficiently estimating epistemic uncertainty in ensemble models, offering significantly faster and more accurate uncertainty estimates in higher-dimensions.

Abstract

In machine learning, the ability to assess uncertainty in model predictions is crucial for decision-making, safety-critical applications, and model generalizability. This work introduces a novel approach for epistemic uncertainty estimation for ensemble models using pairwise-distance estimators (PaiDEs). These estimators utilize the pairwise-distance between model components to establish bounds on entropy, which are then used as estimates for information-based criterion. Unlike recent deep learning methods for epistemic uncertainty estimation, which rely on sample-based Monte Carlo estimators, PaiDEs are able to estimate epistemic uncertainty up to 100 times faster, over a larger input space (up to 100 times) and perform more accurately in higher dimensions. To validate our approach, we conducted a series of experiments commonly used to evaluate epistemic uncertainty estimation: 1D sinusoidal data, $\textit{Pendulum-v0}$, $\textit{Hopper-v2}$, $\textit{Ant-v2}$ and $\textit{Humanoid-v2}$. For each experimental setting, an Active Learning framework was applied to demonstrate the advantages of PaiDEs for epistemic uncertainty estimation.

Author context

Most prolific author: 2 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)