A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification

AI-generated keywords: Machine Learning Decision Systems Confidence Scores Evaluation Protocols Real-World Applications

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
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Paul F. Jaeger, Carsten T. Lüth, Lukas Klein, Till J. Bungert

ICLR 2023 (oral)

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.

Submitted to arXiv on 28 Nov. 2022

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.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2211.15259v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In the field of machine learning, one of the major challenges is the reliable application of decision systems in real-world scenarios. To address this challenge, many approaches have been developed to detect erroneous predictions by assigning confidence scores. These confidence scores can be obtained through various methods such as quantifying predictive uncertainty, learning explicit scoring functions, or assessing the alignment between input data and the training distribution. However, despite their shared goal of detecting failures in real-life applications, these approaches are currently treated as separate research fields with individual evaluation protocols. This fragmentation leads to inconsistencies and pitfalls in evaluating failure detection methods. Some evaluation protocols exclude relevant methods, while others ignore important failure sources. To address these issues, this study systematically uncovers the current pitfalls caused by inconsistent evaluation practices and proposes requirements for a holistic and realistic evaluation of failure detection. To demonstrate the importance of a unified perspective, the researchers present a large-scale empirical study that enables benchmarking of confidence scoring functions across all relevant methods and failure sources. Interestingly, the study reveals that a simple softmax response baseline performs best overall among the evaluated methods. This finding highlights the significant shortcomings in current evaluation practices within the abundance of published research on confidence scoring. The authors provide code and trained models for further exploration on GitHub (https://github.com/IML-DKFZ/fd-shifts). The paper has been accepted for presentation at ICLR 2023 as an oral presentation. The authors of this work are Paul F. Jaeger, Carsten T. Lüth, Lukas Klein, and Till J. Bungert. Overall, this study emphasizes the need for reflection on evaluation practices for failure detection in image classification and provides valuable insights into improving the reliability of machine learning-based decision systems in real-world applications by enabling benchmarking across all relevant methods and failure sources with a unified perspective that takes into account potential shortcomings in current evaluation practices within published research on confidence scoring .
Created on 10 Jul. 2023

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 representation

Look 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.