Normalizing Flow Ensembles for Rich Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we demonstrate how to reliably estimate epistemic uncertainty while maintaining the flexibility needed to capture complicated aleatoric distributions. To this end, we propose an ensemble of Normalizing Flows (NF), which are state-of-the-art in modeling aleatoric uncertainty. The ensembles are created via sets of fixed dropout masks, making them less expensive than creating separate NF models. We demonstrate how to leverage the unique structure of NFs, base distributions, to estimate aleatoric uncertainty without relying on samples, provide a comprehensive set of baselines, and derive unbiased estimates for differential entropy. The methods were applied to a variety of experiments, commonly used to benchmark aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty estimation: 1D sinusoidal data, 2D windy grid-world (Wet Chicken), Pendulum, and Hopper. In these experiments, we setup an active learning framework and evaluate each model's capability at measuring aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. The results show the advantages of using NF ensembles in capturing complicated aleatoric while maintaining accurate epistemic uncertainty estimates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".