# Bayesian Additive Regression Networks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04425 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04425/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02391/) (2016)
- [Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overview](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1404.7828/) (2014)
- [Bayesian Regression Tree Ensembles that Adapt to Smoothness and Sparsity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.09461/) (2017)
- [Neural Random Forests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1604.07143/) (2016)
- [Bayesian Additive Regression Trees with Model Trees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.07493/) (2020)
- [Generalized Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Models: Beyond Conditional Conjugacy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.09924/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We apply Bayesian Additive Regression Tree (BART) principles to training an ensemble of small neural networks for regression tasks. Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, we sample from the posterior distribution of neural networks that have a single hidden layer. To create an ensemble of these, we apply Gibbs sampling to update each network against the residual target value (i.e. subtracting the effect of the other networks). We demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique on several benchmark regression problems, comparing it to equivalent shallow neural networks, BART, and ordinary least squares. Our Bayesian Additive Regression Networks (BARN) provide more consistent and often more accurate results. On test data benchmarks, BARN averaged between 5 to 20 percent lower root mean square error. This error performance does come at the cost, however, of greater computation time. BARN sometimes takes on the order of a minute where competing methods take a second or less. But, BARN without cross-validated hyperparameter tuning takes about the same amount of computation time as tuned other methods. Yet BARN is still typically more accurate.