Bayesian Low-Rank Learning (Bella): A Practical Approach to Bayesian Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational complexity of Bayesian learning is impeding its adoption in practical, large-scale tasks, despite demonstrations of significant merits such as improved robustness and resilience to unseen or out-of-distribution inputs over their non-Bayesian counterparts. Although, Deep ensemble methods (Seligmann et al. 2024; Lakshminarayanan, Pritzel, and Blundell 2017) have proven to be highly effective for Bayesian deep learning, their practical application is hindered by substantial computational cost. In this study, we introduce an innovative framework to mitigate the computational burden of ensemble Bayesian deep learning. We explore a more feasible alternative, inspired by the recent success of low-rank adapters, we introduce Bayesian Low-Rank LeArning (Bella). We show, i) Bella achieves a dramatic reduction in the number of trainable parameters required to approximate a Bayesian posterior; and ii) it not only maintains, but in some instances, surpasses the performance–in accuracy and out-of-distribution generalisation–of conventional Bayesian learning methods and non-Bayesian baselines. Our extensive empirical evaluation in large-scale tasks such as ImageNet, CAMELYON17, DomainNet, VQA with CLIP, LLaVA demonstrate the effectiveness and versatility of Bella in building highly scalable and practical Bayesian deep models for real-world applications.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".