mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Quantification of Deep Neural Network Prediction Uncertainties for VVUQ of Machine Learning Models

arXiv 2206.14615 ↗First posted 27 Jun 2022cs.LGcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent performance breakthroughs in Artificial intelligence (AI) and Machine learning (ML), especially advances in Deep learning (DL), the availability of powerful, easy-to-use ML libraries (e.g., scikit-learn, TensorFlow, PyTorch.), and increasing computational power have led to unprecedented interest in AI/ML among nuclear engineers. For physics-based computational models, Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification (VVUQ) have been very widely investigated and a lot of methodologies have been developed. However, VVUQ of ML models has been relatively less studied, especially in nuclear engineering. In this work, we focus on UQ of ML models as a preliminary step of ML VVUQ, more specifically, Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) because they are the most widely used supervised ML algorithm for both regression and classification tasks. This work aims at quantifying the prediction, or approximation uncertainties of DNNs when they are used as surrogate models for expensive physical models. Three techniques for UQ of DNNs are compared, namely Monte Carlo Dropout (MCD), Deep Ensembles (DE) and Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs). Two nuclear engineering examples are used to benchmark these methods, (1) time-dependent fission gas release data using the Bison code, and (2) void fraction simulation based on the BFBT benchmark using the TRACE code. It was found that the three methods typically require different DNN architectures and hyperparameters to optimize their performance. The UQ results also depend on the amount of training data available and the nature of the data. Overall, all these three methods can provide reasonable estimations of the approximation uncertainties. The uncertainties are generally smaller when the mean predictions are close to the test data, while the BNN methods usually produce larger uncertainties than MCD and DE.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2022.

Builds on

11 of 44 references.

References · 11

  1. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
  2. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
  3. 2016Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticianscited by 1,472
  4. 2020A Review of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning: Techniques, Applications and Challengescited by 819
  5. 2022Uncertainty Quantification in Scientific Machine Learning: Methods, Metrics, and Comparisonscited by 170
  6. 2014A Tutorial on Principal Component Analysiscited by 141
  7. 2020Bayesian Neural Networks: An Introduction and Surveycited by 131
  8. 2020Development and Assessment of a Nearly Autonomous Management and Control System for Advanced Reactorscited by 9
  9. 2020From Physics-Based Models to Predictive Digital Twins via Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 7
  10. 2020Deep Learning Interfacial Momentum Closures in Coarse-Mesh CFD Two-Phase Flow Simulation Using Validation Datacited by 1
  11. 2021Digital-Twin-Based Improvements to Diagnosis, Prognosis, Strategy Assessment, and Discrepancy Checking in a Nearly Autonomous Management and Control Systemcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

9 papers.