REVIEW 1 cited by
Benchmarking Bayesian Deep Learning on Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Tasks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Benchmarking Bayesian Deep Learning on Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Tasks
read the original abstract
Bayesian deep learning seeks to equip deep neural networks with the ability to precisely quantify their predictive uncertainty, and has promised to make deep learning more reliable for safety-critical real-world applications. Yet, existing Bayesian deep learning methods fall short of this promise; new methods continue to be evaluated on unrealistic test beds that do not reflect the complexities of downstream real-world tasks that would benefit most from reliable uncertainty quantification. We propose the RETINA Benchmark, a set of real-world tasks that accurately reflect such complexities and are designed to assess the reliability of predictive models in safety-critical scenarios. Specifically, we curate two publicly available datasets of high-resolution human retina images exhibiting varying degrees of diabetic retinopathy, a medical condition that can lead to blindness, and use them to design a suite of automated diagnosis tasks that require reliable predictive uncertainty quantification. We use these tasks to benchmark well-established and state-of-the-art Bayesian deep learning methods on task-specific evaluation metrics. We provide an easy-to-use codebase for fast and easy benchmarking following reproducibility and software design principles. We provide implementations of all methods included in the benchmark as well as results computed over 100 TPU days, 20 GPU days, 400 hyperparameter configurations, and evaluation on at least 6 random seeds each.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Complementing Self-Consistency with Cross-Model Disagreement for Uncertainty Quantification
Cross-model semantic disagreement adds an epistemic uncertainty term that improves total uncertainty estimation over self-consistency alone, helping flag confident errors in LLMs.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.