The Implicit Delta Method
Nathan Kallus, James McInerney
Abstract
Epistemic uncertainty quantification is a crucial part of drawing credible conclusions from predictive models, whether concerned about the prediction at a given point or any downstream evaluation that uses the model as input. When the predictive model is simple and its evaluation differentiable, this task is solved by the delta method, where we propagate the asymptotically-normal uncertainty in the predictive model through the evaluation to compute standard errors and Wald confidence intervals. However, this becomes difficult when the model and/or evaluation becomes more complex. Remedies include the bootstrap, but it can be computationally infeasible when training the model even once is costly. In this paper, we propose an alternative, the implicit delta method, which works by infinitesimally regularizing the training loss of the predictive model to automatically assess downstream uncertainty. We show that the change in the evaluation due to regularization is consistent for the asymptotic variance of the evaluation estimator, even when the infinitesimal change is approximated by a finite difference. This provides both a reliable quantification of uncertainty in terms of standard errors as well as permits the construction of calibrated confidence intervals. We discuss connections to other approaches to uncertainty quantification, both Bayesian and frequentist, and demonstrate our approach empirically.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 3a1b9e36-7baf-4ed2-b2a6-d23f666ec2d6Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on5
- Classification with Valid and Adaptive CoverageYaniv Romano, Matteo Sesia, Emmanuel J. CandèsNeurIPS 2020 · 586 citations
- Laplace Redux - Effortless Bayesian Deep LearningErik A. Daxberger, Agustinus Kristiadi, Alexander Immer, Runa Eschenhagen et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 508 citations
- How Good is the Bayes Posterior in Deep Neural Networks Really?Florian Wenzel, Kevin Roth, Bastiaan S. Veeling, Jakub Swiatkowski et al.ICML 2020 · 409 citations
- Pitfalls of In-Domain Uncertainty Estimation and Ensembling in Deep LearningArsenii Ashukha, Alexander Lyzhov, Dmitry Molchanov, Dmitry P. VetrovICLR 2020 · 354 citations
- Uncertainty Sets for Image Classifiers using Conformal PredictionAnastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Stephen Bates, Michael I. Jordan, Jitendra MalikICLR 2021 · 31 citations
Related papers
- Discriminative Jackknife: Quantifying Uncertainty in Deep Learning via Higher-Order Influence FunctionsAhmed M. Alaa, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2020 · 59 citations
- Centroid Approximation for Bootstrap: Improving Particle Quality at InferenceMao Ye, Qiang LiuICML 2022
- Calibrated Reliable Regression using Maximum Mean DiscrepancyPeng Cui, Wenbo Hu, Jun ZhuNeurIPS 2020 · 71 citations
- Quantification of Uncertainty with Adversarial ModelsKajetan Schweighofer, Lukas Aichberger, Mykyta Ielanskyi, Günter Klambauer et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 37 citations
- Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification To Improve Decisions From Black-Box ModelsSébastien Melo, Gaël Varoquaux, Marine Le MorvanICLR 2026
