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.

The authors develop prior networks, an approach to identifying misclassification on in and out of distribution examples. The work largely builds upon Malinin et al, 2017, adapting their method to the Dirichlet case. The experiments are simple but lack controls and may be too simple to validate the method. Overall: Quality: There do not appear to be any obvious errors. There is no model uncertainty in this paper as a dirac is used for the model prior, so why spend time talkimg about it?

Deep learning has shown tremendous progress in a wide range of digital pathology and medical image classification tasks. Its integration into safe clinical decision-making support requires robust and reliable models. However, real-world data comes with diversities that often lie outside the intended source distribution. Moreover, when test samples are dramatically different, clinical decision-making is greatly affected. Quantifying predictive uncertainty in models is crucial for well-calibrated predictions and determining when (or not) to trust a model. Unfortunately, many works have overlooked the importance of predictive uncertainty estimation. This paper evaluates whether predictive uncertainty estimation adds robustness to deep learning-based diagnostic decision-making systems. We investigate the effect of various carcinoma distribution shift scenarios on predictive performance and calibration. We first systematically investigate three popular methods for improving predictive uncertainty: Monte Carlo dropout, deep ensemble, and few-shot learning on lung adenocarcinoma classification as a primary disease in whole slide images. Secondly, we compare the effectiveness of the methods in terms of performance and calibration under clinically relevant distribution shifts such as in-distribution shifts comprising primary disease sub-types and other characterization analysis data; out-of-distribution shifts comprising well-differentiated cases, different organ origin, and imaging modality shifts. While studies on uncertainty estimation exist, to our best knowledge, no rigorous large-scale benchmark compares predictive uncertainty estimation including these dataset shifts for lung carcinoma classification.

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}.