Uncertainty Quantification for Text Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This full-day tutorial introduces modern techniques for practical uncertainty quantification specifically in the context of multi-class and multi-label text classification. First, we explain the usefulness of estimating aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty for text classification models. Then, we describe several state-of-the-art approaches to uncertainty quantification and analyze their scalability to big text data: Virtual Ensemble in GBDT, Bayesian Deep Learning (including Deep Ensemble, Monte-Carlo Dropout, Bayes by Backprop, and their generalization Epistemic Neural Networks), Evidential Deep Learning (including Prior Networks and Posterior Networks), as well as Distance Awareness (including Spectral-normalized Neural Gaussian Process and Deep Deterministic Uncertainty). Next, we talk about the latest advances in uncertainty quantification for pre-trained language models (including asking language models to express their uncertainty, interpreting uncertainties of text classifiers built on large-scale language models, uncertainty estimation in text generation, calibration of language models, and calibration for in-context learning). After that, we discuss typical application scenarios of uncertainty quantification in text classification (including in-domain calibration, cross-domain robustness, and novel class detection). Finally, we list popular performance metrics for the evaluation of uncertainty quantification effectiveness in text classification. Practical hands-on examples/exercises are provided to the attendees for them to experiment with different uncertainty quantification methods on a few real-world text classification datasets such as CLINC150.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".