Organizations: School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Wuhan University Wuhan, China · School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University Wuhan, China · School of Synthetic Biology and Biomanufacturing, Tianjin University Tianjin, China
Deep Imbalanced Regression (DIR) is pervasive in continuous prediction tasks across diverse modalities, such as age estimation, depth prediction, and protein mutation activity prediction, where label-scarce tail samples often carry higher practical value. However, most existing methods still learn deterministic point mappings under mean squared error or its simple variants, implicitly assuming a uniform uncertainty level across all samples and thereby overlooking the instance-wise heteroscedasticity that is widespread in long-tailed data. We further point out that even heteroscedastic negative log-likelihood suffers from a gradient coupling issue, which, under DIR scenarios, weakens the learning signal of hard tail samples and leads to optimization inertia as well as tail underfitting. To address this, we propose DUO, an uncertainty-aware long-tailed regression framework. Specifically, the proposed method models the regression target as a conditional Gaussian distribution to explicitly characterize instance-level predictive uncertainty, and transforms uncertainty into a dynamic enhancement signal for tail samples through decoupled mean-variance optimization. Furthermore, we design a distribution-guided contrastive learning mechanism that adaptively constructs positive and negative pairs based on the overlap between sample distributions, thereby alleviating feature looseness and cross-label semantic entanglement. Across visual and biological DIR benchmarks, DUO achieves the best few-shot bMAE and GM on IMDB-WIKI-DIR, AgeDB-DIR, and AAV2-DIR while remaining competitive on few-shot MAE.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Illustration of instance-level heteroscedasticity. (a) For the same age label, predictive uncertainty increases as image quality degrades. (b) Predictive uncertainty also increases in sparse label regions, even for high-quality samples.
Figure 2. Illustration of the proposed DUO framework. Top-left: a probabilistic regression architecture that models each sample as a Gaussian distribution with predicted mean and uncertainty. Top-middle and top-right: a decoupled mean-variance optimization strategy with stop-gradient, which separates mean learning from variance fitting and explicitly controls gradient flow. Bottom-left: distribution-based pair assignment using the Bhattacharyya coefficient to determine whether two samples form a positive or negative pair according to their distribution overlap. Bottom-right: a distribution-guided contrastive learning module, which is activated after warm-up to refine the feature space for DIR.
Figure 3. Overview of label distributions in the training sets for the AgeDB-DIR, IMDB-WIKI-DIR, Nydu2-DIR and AAV2-DIR datasets.
MAE
bMAE
GM
IMDB-DIR
AgeDB-DIR
AAV2-DIR
IMDB-DIR
AgeDB-DIR
AAV2-DIR
IMDB-DIR
AgeDB-DIR
AAV2-DIR
Vanilla
25.546
13.381
7.365
33.085
16.579
7.565
18.091
9.644
7.351
LDS
22.755
11.489
4.361
30.179
12.055
4.681
13.786
7.577
4.054
FDS
24.347
12.136
5.023
31.839
15.531
5.388
14.600
8.326
4.786
Ranksim
25.317
14.601
4.885
32.464
17.611
5.225
17.639
11.021
4.652
ConR
25.969
12.333
4.183
33.601
14.486
4.335
17.990
9.376
3.932
Table 1. Results are presented for the few-shot region on the IMDB, AgeDB, and AAV2 datasets. The first section reports the results of the baselines and our method, with the best results highlighted in bold. The second section reports the performance differences with respect to the corresponding baselines
Method
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
Vanilla
1.867
1.443
1.884
0.608
LDS
1.764
1.333
1.714
0.641
FDS
1.905
1.478
1.920
0.594
RankSim
1.896
1.475
1.907
0.601
ConR
1.869
1.459
1.912
0.591
DUO(Ours)
1.759
1.351
1.696
0.643
Table 2. Experimental results on the few-shot region of the NYUD2 dataset. Note that we do not report results for two-stage training methods like Balanced MSE and DistLoss on NYUD2, as these methods are primarily designed for global regression and do not directly scale to structured pixel-wise depth prediction.
Figure 4. Feature visualization on AgeDB-DIR for (a) VANILLA, (b) FDS, (c) Ranksim and (d) DUO .
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
Method
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
Vanilla
25.546
13.381
7.365
33.085
16.579
7.565
18.091
9.644
7.351
DUO-C
23.332
10.787
4.193
30.349
13.092
4.400
13.862
6.808
3.948
DUO
22.940
9.917
4.106
27.190
11.590
4.329
13.650
6.587
3.777
Table 3. Component-wise ablation study of DUO in the few-shot regions. Vanilla denotes the baseline trained with Mean Squared Error (MSE). DUO-C removes the contrastive term, and DUO uses the complete objective. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
LDS
1.990
1.981
1.178
4.361
4.681
4.054
3.648
3.888
3.211
1.935
2.117
1.140
LDS+DUO
1.721
1.718
1.060
4.159
4.329
3.770
3.253
3.440
2.800
1.669
1.817
1.027
FDS
1.988
1.985
1.256
5.023
5.388
4.786
4.345
4.667
4.008
1.911
2.147
1.210
FDS+DUO
1.794
1.791
1.128
4.379
4.542
3.984
3.603
3.854
3.273
1.734
1.923
1.090
RankSim
1.936
1.932
1.189
4.885
5.225
4.652
4.151
4.408
3.857
1.864
2.110
1.145
Table 4. Pairwise comparison of various baselines and their DUO-enhanced counterparts on the AAV2 dataset across different shot regions. The best results within each comparison pair are highlighted in bold.
Figure 5. Ablation study on the hyper-parameter λ . (a) and (b) compares the learnt feature space for parameter of 0.5 and 1 respectively. (c) shows the MAE performance under various λ values.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Head
Key setting
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
Vanilla
Single
Standard MSE
25.546
13.381
7.365
33.085
16.579
7.565
18.091
9.644
7.351
NLL
Dual
Joint mean–variance
25.842
14.280
7.880
33.986
16.710
8.095
17.862
15.850
8.274
NLL + BC
Dual
Joint NLL + BC
24.295
11.916
4.160
31.334
14.347
4.396
16.775
8.762
3.823
DUO (NoWeight)
Dual
Decoupled + BC
24.560
12.226
4.109
31.821
14.968
4.380
16.306
8.447
3.815
DUO + ConR
Dual
Decoupled + ConR
23.996
11.565
4.208
31.269
14.265
4.596
15.633
7.996
3.869
Appendix
Table S1. Fine-grained ablation in the few-shot regions.
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
Method
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
IMDB
AgeDB
AAV2
DUO
22.94
9.92
4.11
27.19
11.59
4.33
13.65
6.59
3.78
Raw residual
24.37
12.00
4.15
30.75
13.61
4.39
16.61
8.65
3.82
Interval IoU
23.80
11.40
4.20
30.90
13.80
4.50
15.10
7.60
3.90
Appendix
Table S2. Few-shot controls on uncertainty representation and overlap metric.
Method
Few ∪ Old
Median
Few-shot MAE
Vanilla
7.51
4.88
13.38
RankSim
7.90
5.48
14.60
FDS
7.15
4.97
12.14
DUO
7.03
4.61
11.79
Appendix
Table S3. KNN-MAE feature smoothness on AgeDB-DIR. Lower is better.
Tw
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
5
11.324
14.012
7.801
15
9.917
11.590
6.587
20
10.602
13.102
7.302
50
10.702
13.202
7.352
Appendix
Table S4. Sensitivity to the warm-up epoch Tw on AgeDB-DIR.
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
Vanilla
7.829
13.717
4.389
25.546
33.085
18.091
14.387
14.933
9.797
7.052
7.146
4.024
NLL
8.094
14.201
4.519
25.842
33.986
17.862
15.221
15.918
10.420
7.266
7.371
4.133
LDS
7.626
12.739
4.257
22.755
30.179
13.786
12.146
12.597
6.938
7.059
7.133
4.024
FDS
7.829
13.294
4.457
24.347
31.839
14.600
12.762
13.335
7.145
7.209
7.283
4.219
RankSim
7.892
13.708
4.443
25.317
32.464
17.639
14.914
15.546
10.401
7.077
7.181
4.058
Appendix
Table S5. Experimental results on the IMDB-WIKI dataset across different shot regions (Overall, Few, Median, Many).
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
Vanilla
7.754
9.848
4.951
13.381
16.579
9.644
9.172
9.230
6.175
6.743
6.743
4.324
NLL
8.220
10.000
8.990
14.280
16.710
15.850
9.980
9.990
9.850
6.950
6.950
6.810
LDS
7.904
8.826
5.139
11.489
12.055
7.577
8.435
8.426
5.404
7.369
7.369
4.860
FDS
7.679
9.574
4.906
12.136
15.531
8.326
8.956
9.000
5.811
6.833
6.833
4.415
RankSim
8.320
10.504
5.331
14.601
17.611
11.021
10.069
10.114
7.042
7.143
7.143
4.550
Appendix
Table S6. Experimental results on the AgeDB dataset across different shot regions (Overall, Few, Median, Many).
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
Vanilla
2.643
2.623
2.079
7.365
7.565
7.351
5.918
6.116
5.890
2.534
2.757
2.010
LDS
1.990
1.981
1.178
4.361
4.681
4.054
3.648
3.888
3.211
1.935
2.117
1.140
FDS
1.988
1.985
1.256
5.023
5.388
4.786
4.345
4.667
4.008
1.911
2.147
1.210
RankSim
1.936
1.932
1.189
4.885
5.225
4.652
4.151
4.408
3.857
1.864
2.110
1.145
ConR
1.719
1.716
0.992
4.183
4.305
3.932
3.358
3.590
3.043
1.665
1.852
0.957
Appendix
Table S7. Experimental results on the AAV2 dataset across different shot regions (Overall, Few, Median, Many).
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
Vanilla
0.580
0.371
1.051
0.807
1.867
1.443
1.884
0.608
0.795
0.596
0.673
0.668
0.457
0.318
0.363
0.824
LDS
0.633
0.434
1.004
0.737
1.764
1.333
1.714
0.641
0.781
0.590
0.658
0.680
0.546
0.392
0.426
0.744
FDS
0.589
0.374
1.067
0.807
1.905
1.478
1.920
0.594
0.802
0.601
0.675
0.661
0.464
0.320
0.364
0.825
RankSim
0.594
0.377
1.066
0.803
1.896
1.475
1.907
0.601
0.818
0.622
0.698
0.638
0.470
0.322
0.367
0.822
ConR
0.586
0.378
1.067
0.801
1.869
1.459
1.912
0.591
0.805
0.601
0.683
0.668
0.463
0.325
0.370
0.818
Appendix
Table S8. Experimental results on the NYUD2 dataset across different shot regions (Overall, Few, Median, Many).
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
LDS
7.904
8.826
5.139
11.489
12.055
7.577
8.435
8.426
5.404
7.369
7.369
4.860
LDS+DUO
8.121
8.983
5.116
9.595
11.563
5.415
9.411
9.396
5.860
7.588
7.588
4.887
FDS
7.679
9.574
4.906
12.136
15.531
8.326
8.956
9.000
5.811
6.833
6.833
4.415
FDS+DUO
7.699
9.137
4.892
11.561
13.751
8.267
9.028
9.054
5.929
6.901
6.901
4.374
RankSim
8.320
10.504
5.330
14.601
17.611
11.021
10.069
10.114
7.042
7.143
7.143
4.550
Appendix
Table S9. Pairwise comparison of various baselines and their DUO-enhanced counterparts on the AgeDB dataset across different shot regions.
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
GM ↓
LDS
7.626
12.739
4.257
22.755
30.179
13.786
12.146
12.597
6.938
7.059
7.133
4.024
LDS+DUO
8.492
13.848
5.038
24.378
31.551
16.595
14.398
14.793
9.392
7.793
7.885
4.697
FDS
7.829
13.294
4.457
24.347
31.839
14.600
12.762
13.335
7.145
7.209
7.283
4.219
FDS+DUO
8.404
13.815
4.893
24.471
31.432
16.903
14.743
15.256
9.874
7.664
7.755
4.535
RankSim
7.892
13.708
4.443
25.317
32.464
17.639
14.914
15.546
10.401
7.077
7.181
4.058
Appendix
Table S10. Pairwise comparison of various baselines and their DUO-enhanced counterparts on the IMDB-WIKI dataset across different shot regions.
Overall
Few
Median
Many
Method
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
bMAE ↓
δ1↑
LDS
0.633
0.434
1.004
0.737
1.764
1.333
1.714
0.641
0.781
0.590
0.658
0.680
0.546
0.392
0.426
0.744
LDS+DUO
0.626
0.417
1.008
0.762
1.767
1.341
1.727
0.648
0.821
0.624
0.684
0.651
0.528
0.370
0.415
0.774
FDS
0.589
0.374
1.067
0.807
1.905
1.478
1.920
0.594
0.802
0.601
0.675
0.661
0.464
0.320
0.364
0.825
FDS+DUO
0.607
0.396
1.054
0.783
1.845
1.443
1.854
0.606
0.819
0.621
0.700
0.660
0.494
0.344
0.391
0.799
RankSim
0.594
0.377
1.066
0.803
1.896
1.475
1.907
0.601
0.818
0.622
0.698
0.638
0.470
0.322
0.367
0.822
Appendix
Table S11. Pairwise comparison of various baselines and their DUO-enhanced counterparts on the NYUD2 dataset across different shot regions.
Heteroscedastic regression models how prediction errors vary with inputs, improving uncertainty estimates and predictions when data noise is not constant.
Deep Imbalanced Regression (DIR) addresses a common failure mode of regression models: target distributions are highly non-uniform, causing models to perform best in densely populated target regions even when reliable performance is required across the full target range. Despite rapid methodological progress, DIR evaluation remains constrained by three blind spots: it is dominated by image-based benchmarks, its standard many-/medium-/few-shot protocol is diagnostic but not decision-complete, and tail-region stability across random seeds has not been systematically evaluated. We revisit DIR evaluation along these three axes. First, we broaden the data domain by evaluating DIR on a multimodal virtual sensing benchmark (MuViS) with nine time-series extrinsic regression tasks across six physical domains, where rare target values often correspond to operationally meaningful regimes. Second, we adopt balanced MAE (bMAE) and introduce balanced Mean Absolute Scaled Error (bMASE), a scale-normalized metric for decision-complete comparison across methods and datasets. Third, through a repeated reevaluation of six representative DIR methods across multiple random seeds, we show that the tail regions targeted by DIR exhibit particularly high sensitivity to seed-level variability. Our results show that standard virtual-sensing models exhibit substantial tail degradation hidden by global MAE, that existing DIR methods can improve balanced performance but transfer unevenly to multimodal time-series data, and that tail-region instability remains a largely hidden failure mode under current DIR evaluation practice. Together, these findings and our publicly available code provide a reproducible basis for future DIR research toward regression systems that capture rare target regimes as reliably as common ones.
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) in deep learning regression is of wide interest, as it supports critical applications including sequential decision making and risk-sensitive tasks. In heteroskedastic regression, where the uncertainty of the target depends on the input, a common approach is to train a neural network that parameterizes the mean and the variance of the predictive distribution. Still, training deep heteroskedastic regression models poses practical challenges in the trade-off between uncertainty quantification and mean prediction, such as optimization difficulties, representation collapse, and variance overfitting. In this work we identify previously undiscussed fallacies and propose a simple and efficient procedure that addresses these challenges jointly by post-hoc fitting a variance model across the intermediate layers of a pretrained network on a hold-out dataset. We demonstrate that our method achieves on-par or state-of-the-art uncertainty quantification on several molecular graph datasets, without compromising mean prediction accuracy and remaining cheap to use at prediction time.
Mikkel Jordahn, Jonas Vestergaard Jensen, James Harrison +2
Imbalanced learning addresses predictive modeling problems with underrepresented regions of the data distribution. Although widely studied in classification, imbalanced regression remains challenging because of continuous target variables and heterogeneous density distributions. Existing data-level methods often rely on fixed target partitioning or synthetic sample generation without jointly considering density variations and local feature-space structure. We propose DADIR, a Density-Aware Data-level Imbalanced Regression framework that exploits density information throughout the balancing process. DADIR comprises three components: (1) Density-Aware Adaptive Partitioning (DAAP), which recursively partitions the target space according to density variations; (2) a Density-Regularized Conditional Variational Autoencoder (DR-CVAE), which preserves sparse-region representations while learning latent features; and (3) latent-space data balancing, which combines feature-level clustering with oversampling to generate structurally consistent synthetic samples. Together, these components identify minority regions more effectively, preserve sparse-region information, and generate realistic synthetic data. The resulting balanced dataset can be used directly with existing regression models without modifying their architecture or learning objective. Experiments on diverse imbalanced regression datasets demonstrate consistent improvements in predictive performance, particularly in underrepresented regions, while also improving overall accuracy.