Handling Black Swan Events in Deep Learning with Diversely Extrapolated Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By virtue of their expressive power, neural networks (NNs) are well suited to fitting large, complex datasets, yet they are also known to produce similar predictions for points outside the training distribution. As such, they are, like humans, under the influence of the Black Swan theory: models tend to be extremely "surprised" by rare events, leading to potentially disastrous consequences, while justifying these same events in hindsight. To avoid this pitfall, we introduce DENN, an ensemble approach building a set of Diversely Extrapolated Neural Networks that fits the training data and is able to generalize more diversely when extrapolating to novel data points. This leads DENN to output highly uncertain predictions for unexpected inputs. We achieve this by adding a diversity term in the loss function used to train the model, computed at specific inputs. We first illustrate the usefulness of the method on a low-dimensional regression problem. Then, we show how the loss can be adapted to tackle anomaly detection during classification, as well as safe imitation learning problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".