Estimating and Evaluating Regression Predictive Uncertainty in Deep Object Detectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictive uncertainty estimation is an essential next step for the reliable deployment of deep object detectors in safety-critical tasks. In this work, we focus on estimating predictive distributions for bounding box regression output with variance networks. We show that in the context of object detection, training variance networks with negative log likelihood (NLL) can lead to high entropy predictive distributions regardless of the correctness of the output mean. We propose to use the energy score as a non-local proper scoring rule and find that when used for training, the energy score leads to better calibrated and lower entropy predictive distributions than NLL. We also address the widespread use of non-proper scoring metrics for evaluating predictive distributions from deep object detectors by proposing an alternate evaluation approach founded on proper scoring rules. Using the proposed evaluation tools, we show that although variance networks can be used to produce high quality predictive distributions, ad-hoc approaches used by seminal object detectors for choosing regression targets during training do not provide wide enough data support for reliable variance learning. We hope that our work helps shift evaluation in probabilistic object detection to better align with predictive uncertainty evaluation in other machine learning domains. Code for all models, evaluation, and datasets is available at: https://github.com/asharakeh/probdet.git.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".