Skip to main content

Efficient Uncertainty Quantification for Under-Constraint Prediction Following Learning Using MCMC

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Neural Information Processing (ICONIP 2022)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1791))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We present an illustration of a method to ensure reliable uncertainty percolation, within supervised learning performed using Gaussian Processes (GP), and Markov Chain Monte Carlo based inference. We show the effect of variously propagating the uncertainty, on predictions undertaken on the output variable, at test inputs, subsequent to the learning of the functional relationship between the input and the output, where this functional relation is modelled as a realisation from a GP. The efficiency of imposing a physically motivated constraints on the output - via priors imposed on the GP covariance kernel hyperparameters - is compromised under certain strategies adopted to propagate uncertainty. Tools such as DNNs, that are relatively more blind to uncertainty learning/propagation, are found to be diversely inaccurate in their output prediction.

Supported by EPSRC DTP Studentship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Begoli, E., Bhattacharya, T., Kusnezov, D.: The need for uncertainty quantification in machine-assisted medical decision making. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1(1), 20ā€“23 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dalal, S.R., Fowlkes, E.B., Hoadley, B.: Risk analysis of the space shuttle: pre-challenger prediction of failure. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 84(408), 945ā€“957 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Der Kiureghian, A., Ditlevsen, O.: Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter? Struct. Saf. 31(2), 105ā€“112 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ghahramani, Z.: Probabilistic machine learning and artificial intelligence. Nature 521(7553), 452ā€“459 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kruschke, J.K.: Doing Bayesian Data Analysis (2nd edn). Academic Press, Cambridge (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Liao, L., Li, H., Shang, W., Ma, L.: An empirical study of the impact of hyperparameter tuning and model optimization on the performance properties of deep neural networks. ACM Trans. Soft. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 31(3), 1ā€“40 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mallick, T., Balaprakash, P., Macfarlane, J.: Deep-ensemble-based uncertainty quantification in spatiotemporal graph neural networks for traffic forecasting (2022). arXiv:2204.01618

  8. Neal, R.M.: Regression and classification using gaussian process priors (with discussion). In: Bernardo, J.M., et al. (eds.), Bayesian Statistics 6, pp. 475ā€“501. Oxford University Press (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Oā€™Hagan, A.: Curve fitting and optimal design for prediction. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 40(1), 1ā€“24 (1978)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Rasmussen, C.E.: Evaluation of Gaussian processes and other methods for non-linear regression. PhD thesis, University of Toronto Toronto, Canada (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rasmussen, C.E., Williams, C.K I.: Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning. MIT Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Robert, C.P., Casella, G.: Monte carlo statistical methods. In: Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer, New York (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4145-2

  13. Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H.: Information privacy research: an interdisciplinary review. MIS quarterly, pp. 989ā€“1015 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tensorflow. Basic regression: Predict fuel efficiency (2022). https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/keras/regression

  15. Young, D.S.: Chapman and Hall/CRC, Handbook of regression methods (2018)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dalia Chakrabarty .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Roy, G., Chakrabarty, D. (2023). Efficient Uncertainty Quantification for Under-Constraint Prediction Following Learning Using MCMC. In: Tanveer, M., Agarwal, S., Ozawa, S., Ekbal, A., Jatowt, A. (eds) Neural Information Processing. ICONIP 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1791. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1639-9_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1639-9_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-1638-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-1639-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics