Research overview on Aleatoric Uncertainty part1(Towards AGI 2024)
- Cell Tracking according to Biological Needs — Strong Mitosis-aware Random-finite Sets Tracker with Aleatoric Uncertainty
Authors: Timo Kaiser, Maximilian Schier, Bodo Rosenhahn
Abstract: Cell tracking and segmentation assist biologists in extracting insights from large-scale microscopy time-lapse data. Driven by local accuracy metrics, current tracking approaches often suffer from a lack of long-term consistency. To address this issue, we introduce an uncertainty estimation technique for neural tracking-by-regression frameworks and incorporate it into our novel extended Poisson multi-Bernoulli mixture tracker. Our uncertainty estimation identifies uncertain associations within high-performing tracking-by-regression methods using problem-specific test-time augmentations. Leveraging this uncertainty, along with a novel mitosis-aware assignment problem formulation, our tracker resolves false associations and mitosis detections stemming from long-term conflicts. We evaluate our approach on nine competitive datasets and demonstrate that it outperforms the current state-of-the-art on biologically relevant metrics substantially, achieving improvements by a factor of approximately 5.75. Furthermore, we uncover new insights into the behavior of tracking-by-regression uncertainty.
2. AURA: Natural Language Reasoning for Aleatoric Uncertainty in Rationales
Authors: Hazel Kim
Abstract: Rationales behind answers not only explain model decisions but boost language models to reason well on complex reasoning tasks. However, obtaining impeccable rationales is often impossible. Besides, it is non-trivial to estimate the degree to which the rationales are faithful enough to encourage model performance. Thus, such reasoning tasks often compel models to output correct answers under undesirable rationales and are sub-optimal compared to what the models are fully capable of. In this work, we propose how to deal with imperfect rationales causing aleatoric uncertainty. We first define the ambiguous rationales with entropy scores of given rationales, using model prior beliefs as informativeness. We then guide models to select one of two different reasoning models according to the ambiguity of rationales. We empirically argue that our proposed method produces robust performance superiority against the adversarial quality of rationales and low-resource settings
