Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Nis Meinert

dblp:290/1247 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-4712-9579ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 62% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 25% Optimization for machine learning · 13%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty estimation
1.422024
Is Epistemic Uncertainty Faithfully Represented by Evidential Deep Learning Methods? · ICML 2024
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Evidential Regression · AAAI 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
epistemic uncertainty
0.812024
Is Epistemic Uncertainty Faithfully Represented by Evidential Deep Learning Methods? · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Optimization for machine learning
loss function optimization
0.812024
Is Epistemic Uncertainty Faithfully Represented by Evidential Deep Learning Methods? · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › deep probabilistic models › bayesian deep learning
bayesian neural networks
0.712023
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Evidential Regression · AAAI 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation › evidential regression
deep evidential regression
0.712023
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Evidential Regression · AAAI 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › uncertainty estimation
evidential regression
0.712023
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Evidential Regression · AAAI 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

evidential deep learning · 0.8empirical risk minimization · 0.8bayesian methods · 0.8evidential distributions · 0.7bayesian neural network · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Is Epistemic Uncertainty Faithfully Represented by Evidential Deep Learning Methods?
abstract
Trustworthy ML systems should not only return accurate predictions, but also a reliable representation of their uncertainty. Bayesian methods are commonly used to quantify both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, but alternative approaches, such as evidential deep learning methods, have become popular in recent years. The latter group of methods in essence extends empirical risk minimization (ERM) for predicting second-order probability distributions over outcomes, from which measures of epistemic (and aleatoric) uncertainty can be extracted. This paper presents novel theoretical insights of evidential deep learning, highlighting the difficulties in optimizing second-order loss functions and interpreting the resulting epistemic uncertainty measures. With a systematic setup that covers a wide range of approaches for classification, regression and counts, it provides novel insights into issues of identifiability and convergence in second-order loss minimization, and the relative (rather than absolute) nature of epistemic uncertainty measures.
Mira Jürgens, Nis Meinert, Viktor Bengs, Eyke Hüllermeier, Willem Waegeman
ICML2
2023 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Evidential Regression
abstract
There is a significant need for principled uncertainty reasoning in machine learning systems as they are increasingly deployed in safety-critical domains. A new approach with uncertainty-aware regression-based neural networks (NNs), based on learning evidential distributions for aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, shows promise over traditional deterministic methods and typical Bayesian NNs, notably with the capabilities to disentangle aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. Despite some empirical success of Deep Evidential Regression (DER), there are important gaps in the mathematical foundation that raise the question of why the proposed technique seemingly works. We detail the theoretical shortcomings and analyze the performance on synthetic and real-world data sets, showing that Deep Evidential Regression is a heuristic rather than an exact uncertainty quantification. We go on to discuss corrections and redefinitions of how aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties should be extracted from NNs.
Nis Meinert, Jakob Gawlikowski, Alexander Lavin
AAAI1