VOLTA: The Surprising Ineffectiveness of Auxiliary Losses for Calibrated Deep Learning
Organizations: Department of Electronics & Electrical Engineering BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus. · Department of Economics & Finance BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus
Abstract
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for deploying deep learning models in safety critical applications, yet no consensus exists on which UQ method performs best across different data modalities and distribution shifts. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmark of ten widely used UQ baselines including MC Dropout, SWAG, ensemble methods, temperature scaling, energy based OOD, Mahalanobis, hyperbolic classifiers, ENN, Taylor Sensus, and split conformal prediction against a simplified yet highly effective variant of VOLTA that retains only a deep encoder, learnable prototypes, cross entropy loss, and post hoc temperature scaling. We evaluate all methods on CIFAR 10 (in distribution), CIFAR 100, SVHN, uniform noise (out of distribution), CIFAR 10 C (corruptions), and Tiny ImageNet features (tabular). VOLTA achieves competitive or superior accuracy (up to 0.864 on CIFAR 10), significantly lower expected calibration error (0.010 vs. 0.044 to 0.102 for baselines), and strong OOD detection (AUROC 0.802). Statistical testing over three random seeds shows that VOLTA matches or outperforms most baselines, with ablation studies confirming the importance of adaptive temperature and deep encoders. Our results establish VOLTA as a lightweight, deterministic, and well calibrated alternative to more complex UQ approaches.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Role | Norm. (mean/std) | Splits (tr/val/te) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10 | ID | (0.5,0.5,0.5)/(0.5,0.5,0.5) | 40k/10k/10k |
| CIFAR-100 | OOD (for C10); ID | (0.507,0.487,0.441)/(0.268,0.257,0.276) | 45k/5k/10k |
| SVHN | OOD | same as CIFAR-10 | –/–/26k |
| Uniform Noise | OOD | same as CIFAR-10 | –/–/5k |
| CIFAR-10-C | corruption | same as CIFAR-10 | –/–/10k per corr. |
| TinyImageNetFeat | ID+OOD | none | 64k/16k/5k (ID); 5k OOD |
| Dataset | Role | Test | Normalisation (mean, std) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIFAR-10 | ID | 10k | , | Random crop, horizontal flip |
| CIFAR-100 | OOD / ID | 10k | , | None |
| SVHN | OOD | 26k | Same as CIFAR-10 | – |
| Uniform Noise | OOD | 10k | Same as CIFAR-10 | Synthetic |
| CIFAR-10-C | Corruption | 10k/type | Same as CIFAR-10 | 19 corruptions (severity 1) |
| Tiny ImageNet Feat. | ID | 5k (ID) | None | ID: 0–99; OOD: 100–199 (5k) |
| Method | Acc | ECE | NLL | Brier | AUROC | FPR@95 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC Dropout | ||||||
| SWAG | ||||||
| Temperature Scaling | ||||||
| Energy-based OOD | ||||||
| Mahalanobis | ||||||
| Hyperbolic |
Uncertainty Quantification
Uncertainty quantification estimates how reliable predictions and scientific inferences are, and how uncertainty propagates into decisions.
See all 649 papers