PAGER: A Framework for Failure Analysis of Deep Regression Models
Jayaraman J. Thiagarajan, Vivek Narayanaswamy, Puja Trivedi, Rushil, Anirudh

TL;DR
PAGER is a framework that combines uncertainty estimates and data manifold analysis to effectively detect and characterize failures in deep regression models, enhancing safe deployment.
Contribution
It introduces PAGER, a novel systematic approach that unifies uncertainty and non-conformity scores for failure detection in deep regressors.
Findings
Uncertainty alone is insufficient for failure detection.
PAGER improves failure detection accuracy.
Framework unifies multiple failure characterization methods.
Abstract
Safe deployment of AI models requires proactive detection of failures to prevent costly errors. To this end, we study the important problem of detecting failures in deep regression models. Existing approaches rely on epistemic uncertainty estimates or inconsistency w.r.t the training data to identify failure. Interestingly, we find that while uncertainties are necessary they are insufficient to accurately characterize failure in practice. Hence, we introduce PAGER (Principled Analysis of Generalization Errors in Regressors), a framework to systematically detect and characterize failures in deep regressors. Built upon the principle of anchored training in deep models, PAGER unifies both epistemic uncertainty and complementary manifold non-conformity scores to accurately organize samples into different risk regimes.
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2024
1. The presentation of the paper is clear, and it is insightful to characterize different failures of models in a unified framework. 2. The idea of unifying epistemic uncertainties and complementary non-conformity scores is reasonable. 3. The experimental results verify that PAGER achieves great improvement in failure analysis of deep regression models on synthetic and real-world benchmarks.
Can the framework proposed in this paper for analyzing model failures be applied to multi-class classification tasks, and what are the potential differences between it and the regression task studied in the paper?
+ The observation that an uncertainty score is insufficient and a complementary non-conformity score can better organize different regions is interesting. + The idea of using anchors to obtain uncertainty and non-conformity is interesting. + Evaluation is comprehensive and includes various methods on different datasets. + Propose method ($\text{score}_1$) is efficient and is faster than existing work in inference time.
+ $\text{score}_2$ is slower than $\text{score}_1$ in inference time, but it is not significantly better than $\text{score}_1$ in all settings; I'd expect to get more information about why this method should be used and what settings it performs better.
1. The paper focus on the risk estimation of regression tasks, which is less explored compared to classification tasks. While uncertainty estimation based solution has been there for a long time, there were less contribution made in this field that is not based on uncertainty estimation. This makes the paper stand out as a novel contribution. 2. The paper is fairly well written with sufficient evidence to support its claim. While some concepts may be a bit hypothetical (I mean not really possibl
1. The solution is based on anchoring predictive model. I realized the novelty majorly comes from the nature of the anchoring predictive model, which makes me concerning the contribution this particular paper (as it is more incremental now). In addition, how does people use this method to measure regression risk if they don't use anchoring model (which more likely happen in real world)? 2. Multiple concepts introduced in this paper are hypothetical and may not be possible to know in practice. E.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Machine Learning and Data Classification · Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
