mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of Bayesian Convolutional Neural Networks for Geophysical Applications

arXiv 2105.12115 ↗First posted 25 May 2021cs.LG cs.CV physics.geo-phcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep neural networks offer numerous potential applications across geoscience, for example, one could argue that they are the state-of-the-art method for predicting faults in seismic datasets. In quantitative reservoir characterization workflows, it is common to incorporate the uncertainty of predictions thus such subsurface models should provide calibrated probabilities and the associated uncertainties in their predictions. It has been shown that popular Deep Learning-based models are often miscalibrated, and due to their deterministic nature, provide no means to interpret the uncertainty of their predictions. We compare three different approaches to obtaining probabilistic models based on convolutional neural networks in a Bayesian formalism, namely Deep Ensembles, Concrete Dropout, and Stochastic Weight Averaging-Gaussian (SWAG). These methods are consistently applied to fault detection case studies where Deep Ensembles use independently trained models to provide fault probabilities, Concrete Dropout represents an extension to the popular Dropout technique to approximate Bayesian neural networks, and finally, we apply SWAG, a recent method that is based on the Bayesian inference equivalence of mini-batch Stochastic Gradient Descent. We provide quantitative results in terms of model calibration and uncertainty representation, as well as qualitative results on synthetic and real seismic datasets. Our results show that the approximate Bayesian methods, Concrete Dropout and SWAG, both provide well-calibrated predictions and uncertainty attributes at a lower computational cost when compared to the baseline Deep Ensemble approach. The resulting uncertainties also offer a possibility to further improve the model performance as well as enhancing the interpretability of the models.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 May 2021.

Builds on

13 of 52 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,713
  2. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  3. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
  4. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
  5. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,352
  6. 2018Averaging Weights Leads to Wider Optima and Better Generalizationcited by 1,209
  7. 2019A Simple Baseline for Bayesian Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 560
  8. 2017A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networkscited by 513
  9. 2020Bayesian Deep Learning and a Probabilistic Perspective of Generalizationcited by 480
  10. 2017Stochastic Gradient Descent as Approximate Bayesian Inferencecited by 300
  11. 2017Concrete Dropoutcited by 227
  12. 2018The Description Length of Deep Learning Modelscited by 72
1 more
  1. 2017Deep density networks and uncertainty in recommender systemscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.