mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Understanding the Under-Coverage Bias in Uncertainty Estimation

arXiv 2106.05515 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2021cs.LG math.ST stat.MLcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Estimating the data uncertainty in regression tasks is often done by learning a quantile function or a prediction interval of the true label conditioned on the input. It is frequently observed that quantile regression -- a vanilla algorithm for learning quantiles with asymptotic guarantees -- tends to under-cover than the desired coverage level in reality. While various fixes have been proposed, a more fundamental understanding of why this under-coverage bias happens in the first place remains elusive. In this paper, we present a rigorous theoretical study on the coverage of uncertainty estimation algorithms in learning quantiles. We prove that quantile regression suffers from an inherent under-coverage bias, in a vanilla setting where we learn a realizable linear quantile function and there is more data than parameters. More quantitatively, for α>0.5 and small d/n, the α-quantile learned by quantile regression roughly achieves coverage α - (α-1/2)· d/n regardless of the noise distribution, where d is the input dimension and n is the number of training data. Our theory reveals that this under-coverage bias stems from a certain high-dimensional parameter estimation error that is not implied by existing theories on quantile regression. Experiments on simulated and real data verify our theory and further illustrate the effect of various factors such as sample size and model capacity on the under-coverage bias in more practical setups.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 78 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2021.

Builds on

26 of 78 references.

References · 26

  1. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  2. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  3. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
  4. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
  5. 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,274
  6. 2016Distribution-Free Predictive Inference For Regressioncited by 657
  7. 2019Conformalized Quantile Regressioncited by 620
  8. 2018Predictive Uncertainty Estimation via Prior Networkscited by 555
  9. 2019A Simple Baseline for Bayesian Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 555
  10. 2019Conformal Prediction Under Covariate Shiftcited by 511
  11. 2020Uncertainty Sets for Image Classifiers using Conformal Predictioncited by 365
  12. 2017Snapshot Ensembles: Train 1, get M for freecited by 349
14 more
  1. 2019Verified Uncertainty Calibrationcited by 307
  2. 2021Distribution-Free, Risk-Controlling Prediction Setscited by 278
  3. 2019Predictive inference with the jackknife+cited by 206
  4. 2019Ensemble Distribution Distillationcited by 158
  5. 2020Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shiftcited by 82
  6. 2018A modern maximum-likelihood theory for high-dimensional logistic regressioncited by 79
  7. 2020Distribution-free binary classification: prediction sets, confidence intervals and calibrationcited by 79
  8. 2020Moment Multicalibration for Uncertainty Estimationcited by 63
  9. 2019Adaptive, Distribution-Free Prediction Intervals for Deep Networkscited by 56
  10. 2018Evaluating Uncertainty Quantification in End-to-End Autonomous Driving Controlcited by 54
  11. 2018The phase transition for the existence of the maximum likelihood estimate in high-dimensional logistic regressioncited by 45
  12. 2021Don't Just Blame Over-parametrization for Over-confidence: Theoretical Analysis of Calibration in Binary Classificationcited by 39
  13. 2013A framework to characterize performance of LASSO algorithmscited by 38
  14. 2020Sample Complexity of Uniform Convergence for Multicalibrationcited by 24

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 3.

10 papers.