A Tale of Two Variances: When Single-Seed Benchmarks Fail in Bayesian Deep Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In limited-data settings, a single endpoint mean of an evaluation metric such as the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS) is itself a random variable, yet it is routinely reported as if it were a stable property of the method. We study when this practice fails. Using 50 independent repetitions across six regression datasets, we show that CRPS variance trajectories differ substantially across methods and are not always well described by a smooth power-law decay. Methods with a learned heteroscedastic variance head, namely MAP and Deep Ensembles, can develop pronounced, reproducible variance peaks at intermediate training sizes on real datasets, whereas MC Dropout and Bayes by Backprop typically show smooth variance contraction. These peaks have direct practical consequences: at the variance peak on Seoul Bike, the relative RMSE of a single-seed MAP estimate reaches 93.6%, and the probability of falling within (± 10%) of the repeated-run mean drops to 5.9%. We show that local CRPS variance provides a direct signal of single-seed estimation error, with Spearman correlations above 0.96 on every real dataset. Power-law fit quality and monotonicity together provide compact method-level summaries of trajectory regularity. Finally, replacing the standard heteroscedastic objective with (β)-NLL substantially reduces the irregular behavior, consistent with the view that the heteroscedastic training objective contributes to the instability. Practitioners should report trajectory summaries alongside endpoint means and concentrate repeated evaluation in high-variance regions.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2026.
Builds on
27 of 41 references.
References · 27
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,352
- 2016Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticianscited by 1,472
- 2019Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shiftcited by 1,287
- 2018Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offcited by 927
- 2021A Survey of Uncertainty in Deep Neural Networkscited by 680
- 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 672
- 2019A Simple Baseline for Bayesian Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 560
- 2019Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolationcited by 513
15 more
- 2020Bayesian Deep Learning and a Probabilistic Perspective of Generalizationcited by 480
- 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 349
- 2020Pitfalls of In-Domain Uncertainty Estimation and Ensembling in Deep Learningcited by 210
- 2021Accounting for Variance in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 201
- 2019Evaluating Scalable Bayesian Deep Learning Methods for Robust Computer Visioncited by 182
- 2021The Benchmark Lotterycited by 136
- 2024BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practicescited by 114
- 2022Broken Neural Scaling Lawscited by 109
- 2024Benchmarking Uncertainty Disentanglement: Specialized Uncertainties for Specialized Taskscited by 78
- 2024Quantifying Variance in Evaluation Benchmarkscited by 54
- 2022Faithful Heteroscedastic Regression with Neural Networkscited by 37
- 2023Beyond Deep Ensembles: A Large-Scale Evaluation of Bayesian Deep Learning under Distribution Shiftcited by 20
- 2023URL: A Representation Learning Benchmark for Transferable Uncertainty Estimatescited by 17
- 2024Benchmark Data Repositories for Better Benchmarkingcited by 10
- 2025Statistical Uncertainty Quantification for Aggregate Performance Metrics in Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.