Selective classification allows a machine learning model to reject some hard inputs and thus improve the reliability of its predictions. In this area, the ensemble method is powerful in practice, but there has been no solid analysis on why the ensemble method works. Inspired by an interesting empirical result that the improvement of the ensemble largely comes from top-ambiguity samples where its member models diverge, we prove that, based on some assumptions, the ensemble has a lower selective risk than the member model for any coverage within a range. The proof is nontrivial since the selective risk is a non-convex function of the model prediction. The assumptions and the theoretical results are supported by systematic experiments on both computer vision and natural language processing tasks.

Ensembling neural networks is an effective way to increase accuracy, and can often match the performance of individual larger models. This observation poses a natural question: given the choice between a deep ensemble and a single neural network with similar accuracy, is one preferable over the other? Recent work suggests that deep ensembles may offer distinct benefits beyond predictive power: namely, uncertainty quantification and robustness to dataset shift. In this work, we demonstrate limitations to these purported benefits, and show that a single (but larger) neural network can replicate these qualities. First, we show that ensemble diversity, by any metric, does not meaningfully contribute to an ensemble's ability to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) data, but is instead highly correlated with the relative improvement of a single larger model. Second, we show that the OOD performance afforded by ensembles is strongly determined by their in-distribution (InD) performance, and - in this sense - is not indicative of any effective robustness. While deep ensembles are a practical way to achieve improvements to predictive power, uncertainty quantification, and robustness, our results show that these improvements can be replicated by a (larger) single model.

Ensembling neural networks is an effective way to increase accuracy, and can often match the performance of individual larger models. This observation poses a natural question: given the choice between a deep ensemble and a single neural network with similar accuracy, is one preferable over the other? Recent work suggests that deep ensembles may offer distinct benefits beyond predictive power: namely, uncertainty quantification and robustness to dataset shift. In this work, we demonstrate limitations to these purported benefits, and show that a single (but larger) neural network can replicate these qualities. First, we show that ensemble diversity, by any metric, does not meaningfully contribute to an ensemble's ability to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) data, but is instead highly correlated with the relative improvement of a single larger model.

Selective classification allows a machine learning model to reject some hard inputs and thus improve the reliability of its predictions. In this area, the ensemble method is powerful in practice, but there has been no solid analysis on why the ensemble method works. Inspired by an interesting empirical result that the improvement of the ensemble largely comes from top-ambiguity samples where its member models diverge, we prove that, based on some assumptions, the ensemble has a lower selective risk than the member model for any coverage within a range. The proof is nontrivial since the selective risk is a non-convex function of the model prediction. The assumptions and the theoretical results are supported by systematic experiments on both computer vision and natural language processing tasks.

Ensembling neural networks is an effective way to increase accuracy, and can often match the performance of individual larger models. This observation poses a natural question: given the choice between a deep ensemble and a single neural network with similar accuracy, is one preferable over the other? Recent work suggests that deep ensembles may offer distinct benefits beyond predictive power: namely, uncertainty quantification and robustness to dataset shift. In this work, we demonstrate limitations to these purported benefits, and show that a single (but larger) neural network can replicate these qualities. First, we show that ensemble diversity, by any metric, does not meaningfully contribute to an ensemble's ability to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) data, but is instead highly correlated with the relative improvement of a single larger model.

Ensembling neural networks is an effective way to increase accuracy, and can often match the performance of larger models. This observation poses a natural question: given the choice between a deep ensemble and a single neural network with similar accuracy, is one preferable over the other? Recent work suggests that deep ensembles may offer benefits beyond predictive power: namely, uncertainty quantification and robustness to dataset shift. In this work, we demonstrate limitations to these purported benefits, and show that a single (but larger) neural network can replicate these qualities. First, we show that ensemble diversity, by any metric, does not meaningfully contribute to an ensemble's ability to detect out-of-distribution (OOD) data, and that one can estimate ensemble diversity by measuring the relative improvement of a single larger model. Second, we show that the OOD performance afforded by ensembles is strongly determined by their in-distribution (InD) performance, and -- in this sense -- is not indicative of any "effective robustness". While deep ensembles are a practical way to achieve performance improvement (in agreement with prior work), our results show that they may be a tool of convenience rather than a fundamentally better model class.