Papers › Are Uncertainty Quantification Capabilities of Evidential Deep Learning a Mirage?

Are Uncertainty Quantification Capabilities of Evidential Deep Learning a Mirage?

9 Feb 2024arXiv:2402.06160archive 2025-07-28

Maohao Shen, J. Jon Ryu, Soumya Ghosh, Yuheng Bu, Prasanna Sattigeri, Subhro Das, Gregory W. Wornell

This paper questions the effectiveness of a modern predictive uncertainty quantification approach, called \emph{evidential deep learning} (EDL), in which a single neural network model is trained to learn a meta distribution over the predictive distribution by minimizing a specific objective function. Despite their perceived strong empirical performance on downstream tasks, a line of recent studies by Bengs et al. identify limitations of the existing methods to conclude their learned epistemic uncertainties are unreliable, e.g., in that they are non-vanishing even with infinite data. Building on and sharpening such analysis, we 1) provide a sharper understanding of the asymptotic behavior of a wide class of EDL methods by unifying various objective functions; 2) reveal that the EDL methods can be better interpreted as an out-of-distribution detection algorithm based on energy-based-models; and 3) conduct extensive ablation studies to better assess their empirical effectiveness with real-world datasets. Through all these analyses, we conclude that even when EDL methods are empirically effective on downstream tasks, this occurs despite their poor uncertainty quantification capabilities. Our investigation suggests that incorporating model uncertainty can help EDL methods faithfully quantify uncertainties and further improve performance on representative downstream tasks, albeit at the cost of additional computational complexity.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

6 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from maohaos2/edl-mirage. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections