# Scaling Laws for Uncertainty in Deep Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09648 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09648/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 39 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 39)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11929/) (2020)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02142/) (2015)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [Wide Residual Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1605.07146/) (2016)
- [Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15556/) (2022)
- [Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14219/) (2024)
- [Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.01412/) (2020)
- [Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-off](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.11118/) (2018)
- [Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09457/) (2019)
- [Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05217/) (2023)
- [Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.02177/) (2022)
- [Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empirically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.00409/) (2017)
- [Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.14701/) (2020)
- [Explaining Neural Scaling Laws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.06701/) (2021)
- [Stochastic Gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1402.4102/) (2014)
- [What Are Bayesian Neural Network Posteriors Really Like?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.14421/) (2021)
- [Intrinsic dimension of data representations in deep neural networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.12784/) (2019)
- [Concrete Dropout](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07832/) (2017)
- [Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: Are Conditional Entropy and Mutual Information Appropriate Measures?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.03302/) (2022)
- [Bayesian Low-rank Adaptation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.13111/) (2023)
- [The Bayesian Learning Rule](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.04562/) (2021)
- [Benchmarking Uncertainty Disentanglement: Specialized Uncertainties for Specialized Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19460/) (2024)
- [Variational Learning is Effective for Large Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17641/) (2024)
- [Do Bayesian Neural Networks Need To Be Fully Stochastic?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.06291/) (2022)
- [Position: Bayesian Deep Learning is Needed in the Age of Large-Scale AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00809/) (2024)
- [All You Need is a Good Functional Prior for Bayesian Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.12829/) (2020)
- [The Local Learning Coefficient: A Singularity-Aware Complexity Measure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12108/) (2023)
- [Adapting the Linearised Laplace Model Evidence for Modern Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.08900/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A Bayesian Perspective on the Role of Epistemic Uncertainty for Delayed Generalization in In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.12434/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Deep learning has recently revealed the existence of scaling laws, demonstrating that model performance follows predictable trends based on dataset and model sizes. Inspired by these findings and fascinating phenomena emerging in the over-parameterized regime, we examine a parallel direction: do similar scaling laws govern predictive uncertainties in deep learning? In identifiable parametric models, such scaling laws can be derived in a straightforward manner by treating model parameters in a Bayesian way. In this case, for example, we obtain O(1/N) contraction rates for epistemic uncertainty with respect to the number of data N. However, in over-parameterized models, these guarantees do not hold, leading to largely unexplored behaviors. In this work, we empirically show the existence of scaling laws associated with various measures of predictive uncertainty with respect to dataset and model sizes. Through experiments on vision and language tasks, we observe such scaling laws for in- and out-of-distribution predictive uncertainty estimated through popular approximate Bayesian inference and ensemble methods. Besides the elegance of scaling laws and the practical utility of extrapolating uncertainties to larger data or models, this work provides strong evidence to dispel recurring skepticism against Bayesian approaches: "In many applications of deep learning we have so much data available: what do we need Bayes for?". Our findings show that "so much data" is typically not enough to make epistemic uncertainty negligible.