The ideas of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty are widely used to reason about the probabilistic predictions of machine-learning models. We identify incoherence in existing discussions of these ideas and suggest this stems from the aleatoric-epistemic view being insufficiently expressive to capture all of the distinct quantities that researchers are interested in. To explain and address this we derive a simple delineation of different model-based uncertainties and the data-generating processes associated with training and evaluation. Using this in place of the aleatoric-epistemic view could produce clearer discourse as the field moves forward.

Fully supervised models are predominant in Bayesian active learning. We argue that their neglect of the information present in unlabelled data harms not just predictive performance but also decisions about what data to acquire. Our proposed solution is a simple framework for semi-supervised Bayesian active learning. We find it produces better-performing models than either conventional Bayesian active learning or semi-supervised learning with randomly acquired data. It is also easier to scale up than the conventional approach. As well as supporting a shift towards semi-supervised models, our findings highlight the importance of studying models and acquisition methods in conjunction.

Information-theoretic approaches to active learning have traditionally focused on maximising the information gathered about the model parameters, most commonly by optimising the BALD score. We highlight that this can be suboptimal from the perspective of predictive performance. For example, BALD lacks a notion of an input distribution and so is prone to prioritise data of limited relevance. To address this we propose the expected predictive information gain (EPIG), an acquisition function that measures information gain in the space of predictions rather than parameters. We find that using EPIG leads to stronger predictive performance compared with BALD across a range of datasets and models, and thus provides an appealing drop-in replacement.

Attentional modulation of neural representations is known to enhance processing of task-relevant visual information. Is the resulting perceptual boost task-dependent in naturalistic settings? We aim to answer this with a large-scale computational experiment. First we design a series of visual tasks, each consisting of classifying images from a particular task set (group of image categories). The nature of a given task is determined by which categories are included in the task set. Then on each task we compare the accuracy of an attention-augmented neural network to that of an attention-free counterpart. We show that, all else being equal, the performance impact of attention is stronger with increasing task-set difficulty, weaker with increasing task-set size, and weaker with increasing perceptual similarity within a task set.