Organizations: Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences Marquette University, USA · Cornell University, USA · The University of Melbourne, Australia · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA · Tongji University, China
Abstract
Standard evaluations of Bayesian deep learning methods assume that metric estimates are reliable, but we show this assumption fails under data scarcity. Method rankings are not only unreliable at small n, but also dataset-dependent in ways that point estimates cannot reveal: the same method comparison yields P(MCD≺Ensemble)=1.000 at n=50 on one dataset and remains below 0.95 even at n=500 on another. Across the datasets we consider, no universal sample size threshold exists, which is precisely why dataset-specific posterior inference is necessary. To address this, we use a Bayesian hierarchical model with method-specific variances to treat evaluation metrics as random variables across data realizations, and we use a predictive Minimum Detectable Difference curve to assess whether an observed gap would be detectable at a given training size. Across six Bayesian deep learning methods and five regression datasets, our results show that uncertainty-aware evaluation is necessary in low-data settings, because current evidence for method superiority and predictive detectability at the same training size can diverge substantially. Our framework provides practitioners with principled tools to determine whether their evaluation data is sufficient before drawing conclusions about method superiority.
In limited-data settings, a single endpoint mean of an evaluation metric such as the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS) is itself a random variable, yet it is routinely reported as if it were a stable property of the method. We study when this practice fails. Using 50 independent repetitions across six regression datasets, we show that CRPS variance trajectories differ substantially across methods and are not always well described by a smooth power-law decay. Methods with a learned heteroscedastic variance head, namely MAP and Deep Ensembles, can develop pronounced, reproducible variance peaks at intermediate training sizes on real datasets, whereas MC Dropout and Bayes by Backprop typically show smooth variance contraction. These peaks have direct practical consequences: at the variance peak on Seoul Bike, the relative RMSE of a single-seed MAP estimate reaches 93.6%, and the probability of falling within ±10% of the repeated-run mean drops to 5.9%. We show that local CRPS variance provides a direct signal of single-seed estimation error, with Spearman correlations above 0.96 on every real dataset. Power-law fit quality and monotonicity together provide compact method-level summaries of trajectory regularity. Finally, replacing the standard heteroscedastic objective with β-NLL substantially reduces the irregular behavior, consistent with the view that the heteroscedastic training objective contributes to the instability. Practitioners should report trajectory summaries alongside endpoint means and concentrate repeated evaluation in high-variance regions.
We introduce an efficient Bayesian deep ensemble method for predictive regression designed to enhance interpretability while maintaining competitive predictive performance and computational efficiency. Our method combines the statistical rigor of Bayesian inference with the scalability of deep ensembles, providing calibrated uncertainty estimates that enable its use not only for standalone prediction but also as a component within broader learning systems. To achieve these goals, our work relies on three key design components: (i) low-dimensional ensemble representation: predictions are expressed as a combination of a small number of trained neural predictors, enabling scalable inference whose cost depends on ensemble size rather than dataset size; (ii) closed-form Bayesian aggregation: ensemble predictions are combined using Bayesian linear regression, yielding interpretable posterior weights and calibrated uncertainty without approximate inference; and (iii) Independent ensemble training: multiple neural networks are trained separately, producing diverse predictive representations that improve robustness and uncertainty calibration. Empirical results on standard regression benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed approach achieves competitive predictive performance while maintaining reliable uncertainty estimates across settings.
Sina Aghaee Dabaghan Fard, Marie Maros, Jaesung Lee
The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed sample sizes and these diverse needs results in either excessive computational cost or compromised reliability - a critical concern for model evaluation. To overcome these limitations, we call for adoption of sequential testing in our field. We provide an adaptive evaluation framework, that provides a principled way to navigate the trade-off between efficiency and reliability in model evaluation. Our framework combines the established statistical paradigm of sequential testing with stopping criteria tailored to common evaluation needs such as diminishing returns detection, and minimum detectable effect size. We demonstrate its ability to adaptively manage the efficiency-reliability trade-off on the Open VLM Leaderboard, including, for example, a 80% reduction in computational cost compared to fixed-size evaluation (with a 2.5-point CI width allowance) while maintaining statistical significance.