skip to main content


Title: On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian Classification
Aleatoric uncertainty captures the inherent randomness of the data, such as measurement noise. In Bayesian regression, we often use a Gaussian observation model, where we control the level of aleatoric uncertainty with a noise variance parameter. By contrast, for Bayesian classification we use a categorical distribution with no mechanism to represent our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty. Our work shows that explicitly accounting for aleatoric uncertainty significantly improves the performance of Bayesian neural networks. We note that many standard benchmarks, such as CIFAR-10, have essentially no aleatoric uncertainty. Moreover, we show that data augmentation in approximate inference softens the likelihood, leading to underconfidence and misrepresenting our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty. Accordingly, we find that a cold posterior, tempered by a power greater than one, often more honestly reflects our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty than no tempering --- providing an explicit link between data augmentation and cold posteriors. We further show that we can match or exceed the performance of posterior tempering by using a Dirichlet observation model, where we explicitly control the level of aleatoric uncertainty, without any need for tempering.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1922658
NSF-PAR ID:
10438117
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
NeurIPS
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Aleatoric uncertainty captures the inherent randomness of the data, such as measurement noise. In Bayesian regression, we often use a Gaussian observation model, where we control the level of aleatoric uncertainty with a noise variance parameter. By contrast, for Bayesian classification we use a categorical distribution with no mechanism to represent our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty. Our work shows that explicitly accounting for aleatoric uncertainty significantly improves the performance of Bayesian neural networks. We note that many standard benchmarks, such as CIFAR, have essentially no aleatoric uncertainty. Moreover, we show data augmentation in approximate inference has the effect of softening the likelihood, leading to underconfidence and profoundly misrepresenting our honest beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty. Accordingly, we find that a cold posterior, tempered by a power greater than one, often more honestly reflects our beliefs about aleatoric uncertainty than no tempering -- providing an explicit link between data augmentation and cold posteriors. We show that we can match or exceed the performance of posterior tempering by using a Dirichlet observation model, where we explicitly control the level of aleatoric uncertainty, without any need for tempering. 
    more » « less
  2. Inverse problems are ubiquitous in science and engineering. Two categories of inverse problems concerning a physical system are (1) estimate parameters in a model of the system from observed input–output pairs and (2) given a model of the system, reconstruct the input to it that caused some observed output. Applied inverse problems are challenging because a solution may (i) not exist, (ii) not be unique, or (iii) be sensitive to measurement noise contaminating the data. Bayesian statistical inversion (BSI) is an approach to tackle ill-posed and/or ill-conditioned inverse problems. Advantageously, BSI provides a “solution” that (i) quantifies uncertainty by assigning a probability to each possible value of the unknown parameter/input and (ii) incorporates prior information and beliefs about the parameter/input. Herein, we provide a tutorial of BSI for inverse problems by way of illustrative examples dealing with heat transfer from ambient air to a cold lime fruit. First, we use BSI to infer a parameter in a dynamic model of the lime temperature from measurements of the lime temperature over time. Second, we use BSI to reconstruct the initial condition of the lime from a measurement of its temperature later in time. We demonstrate the incorporation of prior information, visualize the posterior distributions of the parameter/initial condition, and show posterior samples of lime temperature trajectories from the model. Our Tutorial aims to reach a wide range of scientists and engineers.

     
    more » « less
  3. Abstract

    Iterative ensemble filters and smoothers are now commonly used for geophysical models. Some of these methods rely on a factorization of the observation likelihood function to sample from a posterior density through a set of “tempered” transitions to ensemble members. For Gaussian‐based data assimilation methods, tangent linear versions of nonlinear operators can be relinearized between iterations, thus leading to a solution that is less biased than a single‐step approach. This study adopts similar iterative strategies for a localized particle filter (PF) that relies on the estimation of moments to adjust unobserved variables based on importance weights. This approach builds off a “regularization” of the local PF, which forces weights to be more uniform through heuristic means. The regularization then leads to an adaptive tempering, which can also be combined with filter updates from parametric methods, such as ensemble Kalman filters. The role of iterations is analyzed by deriving the localized posterior probability density assumed by current local PF formulations and then examining how single‐step and tempered PFs sample from this density. From experiments performed with a low‐dimensional nonlinear system, the iterative and hybrid strategies show the largest benefits in observation‐sparse regimes, where only a few particles contain high likelihoods and prior errors are non‐Gaussian. This regime mimics specific applications in numerical weather prediction, where small ensemble sizes, unresolved model error, and highly nonlinear dynamics lead to prior uncertainty that is larger than measurement uncertainty.

     
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Hierarchical probability models are being used more often than non-hierarchical deterministic process models in environmental prediction and forecasting, and Bayesian approaches to fitting such models are becoming increasingly popular. In particular, models describing ecosystem dynamics with multiple states that are autoregressive at each step in time can be treated as statistical state space models (SSMs). In this paper, we examine this subset of ecosystem models, embed a process-based ecosystem model into an SSM, and give closed form Gibbs sampling updates for latent states and process precision parameters when process and observation errors are normally distributed. Here, we use simulated data from an example model (DALECev) and study the effects changing the temporal resolution of observations on the states (observation data gaps), the temporal resolution of the state process (model time step), and the level of aggregation of observations on fluxes (measurements of transfer rates on the state process). We show that parameter estimates become unreliable as temporal gaps between observed state data increase. To improve parameter estimates, we introduce a method of tuning the time resolution of the latent states while still using higher-frequency driver information and show that this helps to improve estimates. Further, we show that data cloning is a suitable method for assessing parameter identifiability in this class of models. Overall, our study helps inform the application of state space models to ecological forecasting applications where (1) data are not available for all states and transfers at the operational time step for the ecosystem model and (2) process uncertainty estimation is desired.

     
    more » « less
  5. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    The Temple University Hospital EEG Corpus (TUEG) [1] is the largest publicly available EEG corpus of its type and currently has over 5,000 subscribers (we currently average 35 new subscribers a week). Several valuable subsets of this corpus have been developed including the Temple University Hospital EEG Seizure Corpus (TUSZ) [2] and the Temple University Hospital EEG Artifact Corpus (TUAR) [3]. TUSZ contains manually annotated seizure events and has been widely used to develop seizure detection and prediction technology [4]. TUAR contains manually annotated artifacts and has been used to improve machine learning performance on seizure detection tasks [5]. In this poster, we will discuss recent improvements made to both corpora that are creating opportunities to improve machine learning performance. Two major concerns that were raised when v1.5.2 of TUSZ was released for the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge were: (1) the subjects contained in the training, development (validation) and blind evaluation sets were not mutually exclusive, and (2) high frequency seizures were not accurately annotated in all files. Regarding (1), there were 50 subjects in dev, 50 subjects in eval, and 592 subjects in train. There was one subject common to dev and eval, five subjects common to dev and train, and 13 subjects common between eval and train. Though this does not substantially influence performance for the current generation of technology, it could be a problem down the line as technology improves. Therefore, we have rebuilt the partitions of the data so that this overlap was removed. This required augmenting the evaluation and development data sets with new subjects that had not been previously annotated so that the size of these subsets remained approximately the same. Since these annotations were done by a new group of annotators, special care was taken to make sure the new annotators followed the same practices as the previous generations of annotators. Part of our quality control process was to have the new annotators review all previous annotations. This rigorous training coupled with a strict quality control process where annotators review a significant amount of each other’s work ensured that there is high interrater agreement between the two groups (kappa statistic greater than 0.8) [6]. In the process of reviewing this data, we also decided to split long files into a series of smaller segments to facilitate processing of the data. Some subscribers found it difficult to process long files using Python code, which tends to be very memory intensive. We also found it inefficient to manipulate these long files in our annotation tool. In this release, the maximum duration of any single file is limited to 60 mins. This increased the number of edf files in the dev set from 1012 to 1832. Regarding (2), as part of discussions of several issues raised by a few subscribers, we discovered some files only had low frequency epileptiform events annotated (defined as events that ranged in frequency from 2.5 Hz to 3 Hz), while others had events annotated that contained significant frequency content above 3 Hz. Though there were not many files that had this type of activity, it was enough of a concern to necessitate reviewing the entire corpus. An example of an epileptiform seizure event with frequency content higher than 3 Hz is shown in Figure 1. Annotating these additional events slightly increased the number of seizure events. In v1.5.2, there were 673 seizures, while in v1.5.3 there are 1239 events. One of the fertile areas for technology improvements is artifact reduction. Artifacts and slowing constitute the two major error modalities in seizure detection [3]. This was a major reason we developed TUAR. It can be used to evaluate artifact detection and suppression technology as well as multimodal background models that explicitly model artifacts. An issue with TUAR was the practicality of the annotation tags used when there are multiple simultaneous events. An example of such an event is shown in Figure 2. In this section of the file, there is an overlap of eye movement, electrode artifact, and muscle artifact events. We previously annotated such events using a convention that included annotating background along with any artifact that is present. The artifacts present would either be annotated with a single tag (e.g., MUSC) or a coupled artifact tag (e.g., MUSC+ELEC). When multiple channels have background, the tags become crowded and difficult to identify. This is one reason we now support a hierarchical annotation format using XML – annotations can be arbitrarily complex and support overlaps in time. Our annotators also reviewed specific eye movement artifacts (e.g., eye flutter, eyeblinks). Eye movements are often mistaken as seizures due to their similar morphology [7][8]. We have improved our understanding of ocular events and it has allowed us to annotate artifacts in the corpus more carefully. In this poster, we will present statistics on the newest releases of these corpora and discuss the impact these improvements have had on machine learning research. We will compare TUSZ v1.5.3 and TUAR v2.0.0 with previous versions of these corpora. We will release v1.5.3 of TUSZ and v2.0.0 of TUAR in Fall 2021 prior to the symposium. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation’s Industrial Innovation and Partnerships (IIP) Research Experience for Undergraduates award number 1827565. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] I. Obeid and J. Picone, “The Temple University Hospital EEG Data Corpus,” in Augmentation of Brain Function: Facts, Fiction and Controversy. Volume I: Brain-Machine Interfaces, 1st ed., vol. 10, M. A. Lebedev, Ed. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media S.A., 2016, pp. 394 398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00196. [2] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [3] A. Hamid et, al., “The Temple University Artifact Corpus: An Annotated Corpus of EEG Artifacts.” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2020, pp. 1-3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9353647. [4] Y. Roy, R. Iskander, and J. Picone, “The NeurekaTM 2020 Epilepsy Challenge,” NeuroTechX, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://neureka-challenge.com/. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2021]. [5] S. Rahman, A. Hamid, D. Ochal, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improving the Quality of the TUSZ Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2020, pp. 1–5. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9353635. [6] V. Shah, E. von Weltin, T. Ahsan, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “On the Use of Non-Experts for Generation of High-Quality Annotations of Seizure Events,” Available: https://www.isip.picone press.com/publications/unpublished/journals/2019/elsevier_cn/ira. [Accessed: 01-Dec-2021]. [7] D. Ochal, S. Rahman, S. Ferrell, T. Elseify, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “The Temple University Hospital EEG Corpus: Annotation Guidelines,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/tuh_eeg/annotations/. [8] D. Strayhorn, “The Atlas of Adult Electroencephalography,” EEG Atlas Online, 2014. [Online]. Availabl 
    more » « less