A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- Major challenge in machine learning: reliable application of decision systems in real-world scenarios
- Approaches to detect erroneous predictions by assigning confidence scores
- Various methods for obtaining confidence scores: quantifying predictive uncertainty, learning explicit scoring functions, assessing alignment between input data and training distribution
- Fragmentation of approaches and evaluation protocols leads to inconsistencies and pitfalls in evaluating failure detection methods
- Study uncovers current pitfalls caused by inconsistent evaluation practices and proposes requirements for holistic and realistic evaluation of failure detection
- Large-scale empirical study enables benchmarking of confidence scoring functions across all relevant methods and failure sources
- Simple softmax response baseline performs best overall among evaluated methods
- Importance of reflection on evaluation practices for failure detection in image classification
- Code and trained models provided on GitHub (https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/fd-shifts)
- Paper accepted for presentation at ICLR 2023 as an oral presentation
- Authors: Paul F. Jaeger, Carsten T. Lüth, Lukas Klein, Till J. Bungert
Authors: Paul F. Jaeger, Carsten T. Lüth, Lukas Klein, Till J. Bungert
Abstract: Reliable application of machine learning-based decision systems in the wild is one of the major challenges currently investigated by the field. A large portion of established approaches aims to detect erroneous predictions by means of assigning confidence scores. This confidence may be obtained by either quantifying the model's predictive uncertainty, learning explicit scoring functions, or assessing whether the input is in line with the training distribution. Curiously, while these approaches all state to address the same eventual goal of detecting failures of a classifier upon real-life application, they currently constitute largely separated research fields with individual evaluation protocols, which either exclude a substantial part of relevant methods or ignore large parts of relevant failure sources. In this work, we systematically reveal current pitfalls caused by these inconsistencies and derive requirements for a holistic and realistic evaluation of failure detection. To demonstrate the relevance of this unified perspective, we present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions w.r.t all relevant methods and failure sources. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation in the abundance of publicized research on confidence scoring. Code and trained models are at https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/fd-shifts.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.