Activation-Space Uncertainty Quantification for Pretrained Networks
Authors: Richard Bergna, Stefan Depeweg, Sergio Calvo-Ordoñez, Jonathan Plenk, Alvaro Cartea, Jose Miguel Hernández-Lobato
Organizations: Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK · Siemens AG, Munich, Germany · Mathematical Institute and Oxford-Man Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Reliable uncertainty estimates are crucial for deploying pretrained models; yet, many strong methods for quantifying uncertainty require retraining, Monte Carlo sampling, or expensive second-order computations and may alter a frozen backbone's predictions. To address this, we introduce Gaussian Process Activations (GAPA), a post-hoc method that shifts Bayesian modeling from weights to activations. GAPA replaces standard nonlinearities with Gaussian-process activations whose posterior mean exactly matches the original activation, preserving the backbone's point predictions by construction while providing closed-form epistemic variances in activation space. To scale to modern architectures, we use a sparse variational inducing-point approximation over cached training activations, combined with local k-nearest-neighbor subset conditioning, enabling deterministic single-pass uncertainty propagation without sampling, backpropagation, or second-order information. Across regression, classification, image segmentation, and language modeling, GAPA matches or outperforms strong post-hoc baselines in calibration and out-of-distribution detection while remaining efficient at test time.
Figures & tables
Method
Post-hoc
Single Pass
Preserves Mean
Epistemic UQ
Foundation Ready
BNNs
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Ensembles
✗
✗
—
✓
✗
MC Dropout
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Laplace
✓
✗
✗
✓
✗
LL-Laplace
✓
✓
✗
✓
✗
Temp. Scaling
✓
✓
✗
✗
✓
Table 1: The gap in uncertainty quantification methods.
Figure 1: Comparison of uncertainty quantification methods on a toy binary classification task. Left to right : MAP (deterministic backbone), MC Dropout, Last-Layer Laplace, and GAPA (ours). Background shading indicates predictive confidence (darker = more confident); orange/yellow points show the two classes. Key observation : GAPA preserves the backbone’s decision boundary (black line) exactly while adding epistemic uncertainty that grows smoothly away from training data.
Figure 2: GAPA overview. Top: GAPA leaves the network’s point predictions unchanged (mean-preserving activations) while propagating an additional epistemic variance signal to the output. Bottom left: deterministic tanh activation; orange points denote cached training activations. Bottom right: GAPA- tanh , whose posterior mean matches tanh exactly; the shaded region shows ±2 standard deviations.
Operation
Exact GP
GAPA (Ours)
Preprocessing
O(Nℓ3)
O(NℓIkmeans)+O(MℓlogMℓ)
Inference (per query)
O(Nℓ2)
O(log(Mℓ))+O(K3)
Memory
O(Nℓ2)
O(Mℓ)
Table 2: Computational complexity per layer ℓ . Exact GP refers to conditioning on all Nℓ cached activations. Ikmeans denotes the number of k -means iterations.
Model
Airline
Year
Taxi
NLL
CRPS
CQM
NLL
CRPS
CQM
NLL
CRPS
CQM
MAP
5.121
18.695
0.148
3.673
5.023
0.134
3.775
3.755
0.211
LLA Diag
5.125
18.648
0.143
3.647
4.917
0.088
3.722
3.990
0.257
LLA KFAC
5.127
18.631
0.142
3.648
4.915
0.086
3.706
3.986
0.256
LLA*
5.127
18.631
0.141
3.648
4.915
0.086
3.726
3.985
0.256
LLA*KFAC
5.127
18.631
0.141
3.648
4.914
0.086
3.726
3.985
0.256
Table 3: Results on regression datasets. Best values are in purple , and second-best in teal . An asterisk (*) indicates a last-layer LLA variant. Results are averages over 5 random seeds; standard deviations ( <10−3 in all cases) are omitted for brevity. The full table with stds can be found in Table 7 in the Appendix.
Figure 3: Predictive NLL under rotation corruption for MNIST (left panel) and FMNIST (right panel); lower is better. Results are averaged over 5 random seeds.
Figure 4: OOD detection vs inference cost on CIFAR-10. OOD AUROC is plotted against test-time inference cost (log scale) for ResNet backbones. Dashed lines indicate Pareto frontiers (higher OOD, lower cost). GAPA consistently lies on the frontier, achieving strong OOD performance at substantially lower inference cost than baselines.
Figure 5: Left: Effect of number of inducing points Ninducing and k (for nearest neighbor inducing points) on OOD detection task with GAPA at layer [27]. Right: effect of layer placement of GAPA at Ninducing=105 . In both experiments results are averaged over 5 runs with 512 sequences each. In both panels we also show the ℓ/Topt bound (green) as an upper threshold of what can be achieved by global logits scaling.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Qualitative segmentation results with pixel-wise error and epistemic uncertainty. Columns : (1) Input image X , (2) Ground-truth mask Y , (3) Predicted mask Y^ , (4) Error map ∣Y−Y^∣ , (5) Epistemic uncertainty (mutual information). Rows : three representative validation examples.
Figure 7: Regression predictions and uncertainty: (a) MAP backbone, (b) MC Dropout, (c) last-layer Laplace, (d) GAPA (ours).
Figure 8: Effect of the number of inducing points Ninducing and preprocessing strategy on OOD detection task. We plot the AUC using EU (blue) with GAPA at layer [27]. Results are averaged over 5 runs with 512 sequences each. In both panels we also show the ℓ/Topt bound (green) as an upper threshold of what can be achieved by global logits scaling.
Model
Airline
Year
Taxi
NLL
CRPS
CQM
NLL
CRPS
CQM
NLL
CRPS
CQM
MAP (backbone)
5.121 ( ± 0.5)
18.695 ( ± 0.6)
0.148 ( ± 0.4)
3.673 ( ± 0.4)
5.023 ( ± 0.5)
0.134 ( ± 0.3)
3.775 ( ± 0.5)
3.755 ( ± 0.4)
0.211 ( ± 0.4)
LLA Diag
5.125 ( ± 0.4)
18.648 ( ± 0.5)
0.143 ( ± 0.3)
3.647 ( ± 0.3)
4.917 ( ± 0.4)
0.088 ( ± 0.2)
3.722 ( ± 0.4)
3.990 ( ± 0.5)
0.257 ( ± 0.3)
LLA KFAC
5.127 ( ± 0.3)
18.631 ( ± 0.4)
0.142 ( ± 0.3)
3.648 ( ± 0.3)
4.915 ( ± 0.4)
0.086 ( ± 0.2)
3.706 ( ± 0.3)
3.986 ( ± 0.4)
0.256 ( ± 0.3)
LLA*
5.127 ( ± 0.4)
18.631 ( ± 0.5)
0.141 ( ± 0.3)
3.648 ( ± 0.3)
4.915 ( ± 0.4)
0.086 ( ± 0.2)
3.726 ( ± 0.4)
3.985 ( ± 0.5)
0.256 ( ± 0.3)
LLA* KFAC
5.127 ( ± 0.3)
18.631 ( ± 0.4)
0.141 ( ± 0.3)
3.648 ( ± 0.3)
4.914 ( ± 0.4)
0.086 ( ± 0.2)
3.726 ( ± 0.4)
3.985 ( ± 0.4)
0.256 ( ± 0.3)
Appendix
Table 7: Results on regression datasets with standard deviations (in ×10−3 units). Best values are in purple , and second-best in teal . An asterisk (*) indicates a last-layer LLA variant. Results are averages over 5 random seeds. This is the full version of Table 3 with stds included.
Model
MNIST
FMNIST
ACC
NLL
ECE
OOD
BALD
ACC
NLL
ECE
OOD
BALD
MAP
0.978 ( ± 0.4)
0.068 ( ± 0.2)
0.005 ( ± 0.3)
0.919 ( ± 0.5)
0.919 ( ± 0.4)
0.859 ( ± 0.3)
0.392 ( ± 0.6)
0.007 ( ± 0.3)
0.846 ( ± 0.5)
0.821 ( ± 0.5)
LLA Diag
0.976 ( ± 0.5)
0.177 ( ± 0.5)
0.105 ( ± 0.6)
0.932 ( ± 0.6)
0.941 ( ± 0.5)
0.856 ( ± 0.4)
0.421 ( ± 0.5)
0.057 ( ± 0.4)
0.872 ( ± 0.5)
0.873 ( ± 0.6)
LLA KFAC
0.978 ( ± 0.4)
0.102 ( ± 0.4)
0.042 ( ± 0.4)
0.971 ( ± 0.3)
0.971 ( ± 0.4)
0.858 ( ± 0.4)
0.395 ( ± 0.5)
0.020 ( ± 0.3)
0.909 ( ± 0.4)
0.970 ( ± 0.5)
LLA*
0.978 ( ± 0.4)
0.070 ( ± 0.3)
0.009 ( ± 0.3)
0.924 ( ± 0.5)
0.924 ( ± 0.5)
0.859 ( ± 0.4)
0.395 ( ± 0.5)
0.019 ( ± 0.3)
0.850 ( ± 0.5)
0.716 ( ± 0.5)
LLA* KFAC
0.979 ( ± 0.3)
0.070 ( ± 0.3)
0.009 ( ± 0.2)
0.923 ( ± 0.4)
0.928 ( ± 0.5)
0.859 ( ± 0.4)
0.394 ( ± 0.5)
0.017 ( ± 0.3)
0.849 ( ± 0.4)
0.717 ( ± 0.6)
Appendix
Table 8: Results on classification datasets with standard deviations (in ×10−3 units). Best values are in purple , second-best in teal . Values are averages over 5 random seeds; consistent with <10−3 in all cases.
Figure 9: Comparison of metrics at different GAPA layer placements ( M=55,000 )
GAPA layers
MNIST
FMNIST
NLL ↓
OOD-AUC ↑
OOD BALD ↑
NLL ↓
OOD-AUC ↑
OOD BALD ↑
[1]
0.072
0.915
0.916
0.326
0.870
0.900
[2]
0.070
0.921
0.920
0.321
0.884
0.907
[3]
0.068
0.933
0.933
0.309
0.901
0.911
[4]
0.117
0.951
0.957
0.353
0.973
0.969
[1, 2]
0.069
0.923
0.922
0.318
0.901
0.921
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of metrics at different GAPA layer placements ( M=55,000 ). Best values are bold . Lower is better (↓) for NLL; higher is better (↑) for OOD-AUC/BALD.
Figure 10: FMNIST: NLL (left) and OOD-AUC (right) for KMeans vs. FPS across M .
Figure 11: Setup time (FAISS indexing) for KMeans vs. FPS on FMNIST (left) and MNIST (right).
Figure 12: MNIST: NLL (left) and OOD-AUC (right) for KMeans vs. FPS across M .
Figure 13: BALD-based OOD detection for MNIST (left) and FMNIST (right).
M
FPS NLL↓
FPS OOD↑
Rand1 NLL↓
Rand1 OOD↑
Rand2 NLL↓
Rand2 OOD↑
Rand3 NLL↓
Rand3 OOD↑
5000
0.470
0.943
0.394
0.957
0.394
0.957
0.394
0.957
10000
0.442
0.952
0.380
0.960
0.380
0.960
0.380
0.960
20000
0.390
0.964
0.369
0.964
0.369
0.964
0.369
0.964
40000
0.355
0.968
0.359
0.967
0.359
0.967
0.359
0.967
Appendix
Table 13: Comparison of NLL and OOD BALD for FPS and three random baselines (FMNIST, gapa_index= last layer).
Modern deep learning models remain notoriously prone to overconfidence, limiting their reliability in high-stakes applications. Bayesian methods aim to counter this by learning a distribution over model parameters, and recent advances now make this feasible for large-scale architectures at costs comparable to AdamW. However, a challenge remains at test time: predictions must be averaged across many forward passes with weights sampled from the posterior, which is prohibitively expensive. Variance propagation offers an efficient alternative, computing layer-wise analytical approximations of uncertainty in a single forward pass. While such techniques are effective for MLPs, their extension to modern architectures remains challenging, due to increased depth and diversity of layer types. To fill this gap, we propose Calibrated Variance Propagation (CVP), which introduces a new propagation method for normalization layers, combines it with recent techniques for handling activation functions, and absorbs residual error through a light calibration step. CVP yields comparably accurate uncertainty estimates to MC sampling across transformers and CNNs, at a fraction of the cost. Against prior variance propagation work, CVP improves coverage at 0.5% risk from 8.2% to 14.6% with BEiT-3 on Visual Reasoning (NLVR2) and from 2.6% to 10.8% with ViLT on VQAv2, with gains extending to convolutional architectures.
Tobias Jan Wieczorek, Leon de Andrade, Thomas Möllenhoff +1
TU Darmstadt & hessian.AI, Darmstadt, Germany · RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project, Tokyo, Japan
Gaussian neural networks (GaNNs) are proposed as a novel regularization mechanism for neural networks. From a Bayesian perspective standard regularization techniques can be viewed as imposing priors over weight-space. Assuming priors over activation-space remains a largely unexplored possibility. GaNNs assume such priors. They do this by treating activities from earlier layers like signals with Gaussian noise and predicting the properties of the noise distribution using an additional unsupervised loss. While training, the unsupervised loss acts as a penalty on unexpected activities, allowing greater weight updates in less surprising directions. The paper demonstrates the superiority of Gaussian neural networks over standard neural networks on a variety of classification and regression tasks. We also investigate the ability of GaNNs to quantify uncertainty.
Peter Kuhn, Victoria Heusinger-Heß
Fraunhofer Institute for High-Speed Dynamics, Ernst-Mach-Institut, EMI, Germany
Deep neural networks, including large language models, have achieved remarkable performance across various tasks. However, they are prone to overconfidence during training or fine-tuning. In this work, we observe a consistent phenomenon across different models that the early model is better calibrated, while later training or fine-tuning yields marginal accuracy gains but substantially increases calibration errors. Our analysis suggests that the early model retains uncertainty awareness in both its predictions and features, which is gradually lost with continued training. To avoid training away this uncertainty awareness, we propose EUA-Cal, a novel method that exploits the Early model as an Uncertainty Anchor for Calibration. EUA-Cal introduces early prediction regularization to preserve early predictive uncertainty and prototype structure regularization to exploit uncertainty reflected in the early feature space, jointly mitigating overconfidence. Extensive experiments on image classification and multiple-choice question answering across eight diverse models demonstrate that EUA-Cal outperforms state-of-the-art calibration methods.
Yutong Xie, Jiawei Tang, Zhenglin Hua +6
School of Software Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China · School of Computing Information Sciences, Saint Francis University, Hong Kong, China +2