Agree to Disagree: Demystifying Homogeneous Deep Ensembles through Distributional Equivalence
Yipei Wang, Xiaoqian Wang
Abstract
Deep ensembles improve the performance of the models by taking the average predictions of a group of ensemble members. However, the origin of these capabilities remains a mystery and deep ensembles are used as a reliable "black box" to improve the performance. Existing studies typically attribute such improvement to Jensen gaps of the deep ensemble method, where the loss of the mean does not exceed the mean of the loss for any convex loss metric. In this work, we demonstrate that Jensen's inequality is not responsible for the effectiveness of deep ensembles, and convexity is not a necessary condition. Instead, Jensen Gap focuses on the "average loss" of individual models, which provides no practical meaning. Thus it fails to explain the core phenomena of deep ensembles such as their superiority to any single ensemble member, the decreasing loss with the number of ensemble members, etc. Regarding this mystery, we provide theoretical analysis and comprehensive empirical results from a statistical perspective that reveal the true mechanism of deep ensembles. Our results highlight that deep ensembles originate from the homogeneous output distribution across all ensemble members. Specifically, the predictions of homogeneous models (Abe et al., 2022b) have the distributional equivalence property -Although the predictions of independent ensemble members are point-wise different, they form an identical distribution. Such agreement and disagreement contribute to deep ensembles' "magical power". Based on this discovery, we provide rigorous proof of the effectiveness of deep ensembles and analytically quantify the extent to which ensembles improve performance. The derivations not only theoretically quantify the effectiveness of deep ensembles for the first time, but also enable estimation schemes that foresee the performance of ensembles with different capacities. Furthermore, different from existing studies, our results also point out that deep ensembles work in a different mechanism from model scaling a single model, even though significant correlations between them have been observed. The code to re-implement all the experiments is open source at https://github.com/yipei-wang/DeepEnsembleDemystified.
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 f23a96bb-b5db-48a5-986f-3fc23a851468Builds on8
- MLP-Mixer: An all-MLP Architecture for VisionIlya O. Tolstikhin, Neil Houlsby, Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 3,862 citations
- Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data HurtPreetum Nakkiran, Gal Kaplun, Yamini Bansal, Tristan Yang et al.ICLR 2020 · 1,108 citations
- Rethinking Model Ensemble in Transfer-based Adversarial AttacksHuanran Chen, Yichi Zhang, Yinpeng Dong, Xiao Yang et al.ICLR 2024 · 112 citations
- On Power Laws in Deep EnsemblesEkaterina Lobacheva, Nadezhda Chirkova, Maxim Kodryan, Dmitry P. VetrovNeurIPS 2020 · 48 citations
- Second Order PAC-Bayesian Bounds for the Weighted Majority VoteAndrés R. Masegosa, Stephan Sloth Lorenzen, Christian Igel, Yevgeny SeldinNeurIPS 2020 · 48 citations
Related papers
- Joint Training of Deep Ensembles Fails Due to Learner CollusionAlan Jeffares, Tennison Liu, Jonathan Crabbé, Mihaela van der SchaarNeurIPS 2023 · 34 citations
- Theoretical Limitations of Ensembles in the Age of OverparameterizationNiclas Dern, John Patrick Cunningham, Geoff PleissICML 2025
- Diversity Matters When Learning From EnsemblesGiung Nam, Jongmin Yoon, Yoonho Lee, Juho LeeNeurIPS 2021 · 50 citations
- The Disparate Benefits of Deep EnsemblesKajetan Schweighofer, Adrián Arnaiz-Rodríguez, Sepp Hochreiter, Nuria OliverICML 2025
- Deep Ensembles Work, But Are They Necessary?Taiga Abe, Estefany Kelly Buchanan, Geoff Pleiss, Richard S. Zemel et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 101 citations
