mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Empirical Optimal Risk to Quantify Model Trustworthiness for Failure Detection

arXiv 2308.03179 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2023cs.AIcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Failure detection (FD) in AI systems is a crucial safeguard for the deployment for safety-critical tasks. The common evaluation method of FD performance is the Risk-coverage (RC) curve, which reveals the trade-off between the data coverage rate and the performance on accepted data. One common way to quantify the RC curve by calculating the area under the RC curve. However, this metric does not inform on how suited any method is for FD, or what the optimal coverage rate should be. As FD aims to achieve higher performance with fewer data discarded, evaluating with partial coverage excluding the most uncertain samples is more intuitive and meaningful than full coverage. In addition, there is an optimal point in the coverage where the model could achieve ideal performance theoretically. We propose the Excess Area Under the Optimal RC Curve (E-AUoptRC), with the area in coverage from the optimal point to the full coverage. Further, the model performance at this optimal point can represent both model learning ability and calibration. We propose it as the Trust Index (TI), a complementary evaluation metric to the overall model accuracy. We report extensive experiments on three benchmark image datasets with ten variants of transformer and CNN models. Our results show that our proposed methods can better reflect the model trustworthiness than existing evaluation metrics. We further observe that the model with high overall accuracy does not always yield the high TI, which indicates the necessity of the proposed Trust Index as a complementary metric to the model overall accuracy. The code are available at urlhttps://github.com/AoShuang92/optimalrisk.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2023.

Builds on

29 of 42 references.

References · 29

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  3. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,364
  4. 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,139
  5. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
  6. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,364
  7. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,720
  8. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,475
  9. 2018MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottleneckscited by 4,795
  10. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
  11. 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,579
  12. 2016A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networkscited by 2,385
17 more
  1. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
  2. 2019When Does Label Smoothing Help?cited by 988
  3. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  4. 2021CrossViT: Cross-Attention Multi-Scale Vision Transformer for Image Classificationcited by 806
  5. 2021Going deeper with Image Transformerscited by 764
  6. 2018Predictive Uncertainty Estimation via Prior Networkscited by 557
  7. 2020Calibrating Deep Neural Networks using Focal Losscited by 357
  8. 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
  9. 2019Addressing Failure Prediction by Learning Model Confidencecited by 186
  10. 2018Bias-Reduced Uncertainty Estimation for Deep Neural Classifierscited by 113
  11. 2021Machine Learning with a Reject Option: A surveycited by 109
  12. 2021The Devil is in the Margin: Margin-based Label Smoothing for Network Calibrationcited by 91
  13. 2021Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Overview and Field Guide for Future Research Directionscited by 73
  14. 2018Direct Uncertainty Prediction for Medical Second Opinionscited by 61
  15. 2022Benchmarking Bayesian Deep Learning on Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Taskscited by 49
  16. 2023Rethinking Confidence Calibration for Failure Predictioncited by 43
  17. 2019Analyzing the Role of Model Uncertainty for Electronic Health Recordscited by 41

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

4 papers.