Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspective

By Stanislav Fort, Huiyi Hu, Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2019

770 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Deep ensembles have been empirically shown to be a promising approach for improving accuracy, uncertainty and out-of-distribution robustness of deep learning models. While deep ensembles were theoretically motivated by the bootstrap, non-bootstrap ensembles trained with just random initialization also perform well in practice, which suggests that there could be other explanations for why deep ensembles work well. Bayesian neural networks, which learn distributions over the parameters of the network, are theoretically well-motivated by Bayesian principles, but do not perform as well as deep ensembles in practice, particularly under dataset shift. One possible explanation for this gap between theory and practice is that popular scalable variational Bayesian methods tend to focus on a single mode, whereas deep ensembles tend to explore diverse modes in function space. We investigate this hypothesis by building on recent work on understanding the loss landscape of neural networks and adding our own exploration to measure the similarity of functions in the space of predictions. Our results show that random initializations explore entirely different modes, while functions along an optimization trajectory or sampled from the subspace thereof cluster within a single mode predictions-wise, while often deviating significantly in the weight space. Developing the concept of the diversity--accuracy plane, we show that the decorrelation power of random initializations is unmatched by popular subspace sampling methods. Finally, we evaluate the relative effects of ensembling, subspace based methods and ensembles of subspace based methods, and the experimental results validate our hypothesis.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Optimization & Training

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

  1. Mohit Bansal
  2. Quoc V. Le
  3. Yejin Choi
  4. Jianfeng Gao
  5. Percy Liang
  6. Yoshua Bengio
  7. Noah A. Smith
  8. Luke S. Zettlemoyer

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

  1. Luc Van Gool
  2. Dacheng Tao
  3. Trevor Darrell
  4. Ming-Hsuan Yang
  5. Jitendra Malik
  6. Xiaogang Wang
  7. Andrew Zisserman
  8. Bernt Schiele

In Optimization & Training

  1. Frank Hutter
  2. Quoc V. Le
  3. Yoshua Bengio
  4. Andrew Gordon Wilson
  5. Pavel Izmailov
  6. Ali Farhadi
  7. Yann Dauphin
  8. Dustin Tran

Citations in the corpus