Estimating how uncertain an AI system is in its predictions is important to improve the safety of such systems. Uncertainty in predictive can result from uncertainty in model parameters, irreducible \emph{data uncertainty} and uncertainty due to distributional mismatch between the test and training data distributions. Different actions might be taken depending on the source of the uncertainty so it is important to be able to distinguish between them. Recently, baseline tasks and metrics have been defined and several practical methods to estimate uncertainty developed. These methods, however, attempt to model uncertainty due to distributional mismatch either implicitly through \emph{model uncertainty} or as \emph{data uncertainty}. This work proposes a new framework for modeling predictive uncertainty called Prior Networks (PNs) which explicitly models \emph{distributional uncertainty}. PNs do this by parameterizing a prior distribution over predictive distributions. This work focuses on uncertainty for classification and evaluates PNs on the tasks of identifying out-of-distribution (OOD) samples and detecting misclassification on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets, where they are found to outperform previous methods. Experiments on synthetic and MNIST and CIFAR-10 data show that unlike previous non-Bayesian methods PNs are able to distinguish between data and distributional uncertainty.

Since the turn of the century, approximate Bayesian inference has steadily evolved as new computational techniques have been incorporated to handle increasingly complex and large-scale predictive problems. The recent success of deep neural networks and foundation models has now given rise to a new paradigm in statistical modeling, in which Bayesian inference can be amortized through large-scale learned predictors. In amortized inference, substantial computation is invested upfront to train a neural network that can subsequently produce approximate posterior or predictions at negligible marginal cost across a wide range of tasks. At deployment, amortized inference offers substantial computational savings compared with traditional Bayesian procedures, which generally require repeated likelihood evaluations or Monte Carlo simulations for predictions for each new dataset. Despite the growing popularity of amortized inference, its statistical interpretation and its role within Bayesian inference remain poorly understood. This paper presents statistical perspectives on the working principles of several major neural architectures, including feedforward networks, Deep Sets, and Transformers, and examines how these architectures naturally support amortized Bayesian inference. We discuss how these models perform structured approximation and probabilistic reasoning in ways that yield controlled generalization error across a wide range of deployment scenarios, and how these properties can be harnessed for Bayesian computation. Through simulation studies, we evaluate the accuracy, robustness, and uncertainty quantification of amortized inference under varying signal-to-noise ratios and distributional shifts, highlighting both its strengths and its limitations.

Estimating how uncertain an AI system is in its predictions is important to improve the safety of such systems. Uncertainty in predictive can result from uncertainty in model parameters, irreducible \emph{data uncertainty} and uncertainty due to distributional mismatch between the test and training data distributions. Different actions might be taken depending on the source of the uncertainty so it is important to be able to distinguish between them. Recently, baseline tasks and metrics have been defined and several practical methods to estimate uncertainty developed. These methods, however, attempt to model uncertainty due to distributional mismatch either implicitly through \emph{model uncertainty} or as \emph{data uncertainty}. This work proposes a new framework for modeling predictive uncertainty called Prior Networks (PNs) which explicitly models \emph{distributional uncertainty}. PNs do this by parameterizing a prior distribution over predictive distributions. This work focuses on uncertainty for classification and evaluates PNs on the tasks of identifying out-of-distribution (OOD) samples and detecting misclassification on the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets, where they are found to outperform previous methods. Experiments on synthetic and MNIST and CIFAR-10 data show that unlike previous non-Bayesian methods PNs are able to distinguish between data and distributional uncertainty.

Auto encoding models have been extensively studied in recent years. They provide an efficient framework for sample generation, as well as for analysing feature learning. Furthermore, they are efficient in performing interpolations between data-points in semantically meaningful ways. In this paper, we build further on a previously introduced method for generating canonical, dimension independent, stochastic interpolations. Here, the distribution of interpolation paths is represented as the distribution of a bridge process constructed from an artificial random data generating process in the latent space, having the prior distribution as its invariant distribution. As a result the stochastic interpolation paths tend to reside in regions of the latent space where the prior has high mass. This is a desirable feature since, generally, such areas produce semantically meaningful samples. In this paper, we extend the bridge process method by introducing a discriminator network that accurately identifies areas of high latent representation density. The discriminator network is incorporated as a change of measure of the underlying bridge process and sampling of interpolation paths is implemented using sequential Monte Carlo. The resulting sampling procedure allows for greater variability in interpolation paths and stronger drift towards areas of high data density.

Estimating how uncertain an AI system is in its predictions is important to improve the safety of such systems. Uncertainty in predictive can result from uncertainty in model parameters, irreducible \emph{data uncertainty} and uncertainty due to distributional mismatch between the test and training data distributions. Different actions might be taken depending on the source of the uncertainty so it is important to be able to distinguish between them. Recently, baseline tasks and metrics have been defined and several practical methods to estimate uncertainty developed. These methods, however, attempt to model uncertainty due to distributional mismatch either implicitly through \emph{model uncertainty} or as \emph{data uncertainty}.