analiza aiqbench
This research challenges the assumption that deep ensembles effectively quantify uncertainty in graph neural networks, revealing instead that they primarily reduce optimization noise without improving epistemic estimates. The study identifies "epistemic collapse" caused by smoothing biases in message-passing architectures, which limits model diversity and neutralizes the ensemble's core advantage. These findings are critical for practitioners relying on GNNs for safety-critical applications where accurate uncertainty calibration is essential.
Do Deep Ensembles Actually Capture Uncertainty in Graph Neural Networks?
arXiv:2605.22593v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While deep ensembles are widely considered to be the default method for uncertainty quantification in deep learning, their effectiveness for graph-structured data is often simply assumed based on successes in domains like computer vision. We investigate standard deep ensembles specifically for message-passing graph neural networks. Benchmarking across eight datasets representing varied tasks and complexities, we reveal that ensembles provide only marginal improvement over a single model. These marginal gains stem primarily from averaging out optimization noise in point predictions rather than from meaningfully better uncertainty estimates. Through an aleatoric-epistemic decomposition, we identify epistemic collapse: independently trained networks consistently converge to overly similar predictions. Because disagreement is the fundamental mechanism through which ensembles capture epistemic uncertainty, this lack of diversity neutralizes their key advantage. Towards explaining this phenomenon, we derive a bound on epistemic variance in terms of the graph topology and Dirichlet energy budget, linking epistemic collapse to the smoothing bias of message passing. Our results suggest that deep ensemble success does not seamlessly transfer to graph machine learning.
Title:Do Deep Ensembles Actually Capture Uncertainty in Graph Neural Networks?
Abstract:While deep ensembles are widely considered to be the default method for uncertainty quantification in deep learning, their effectiveness for graph-structured data is often simply assumed based on successes in domains like computer vision. We investigate standard deep ensembles specifically for message-passing graph neural networks. Benchmarking across eight datasets representing varied tasks and complexities, we reveal that ensembles provide only marginal improvement over a single model. These marginal gains stem primarily from averaging out optimization noise in point predictions rather than from meaningfully better uncertainty estimates. Through an aleatoric-epistemic decomposition, we identify epistemic collapse: independently trained networks consistently converge to overly similar predictions. Because disagreement is the fundamental mechanism through which ensembles capture epistemic uncertainty, this lack of diversity neutralizes their key advantage. Towards explaining this phenomenon, we derive a bound on epistemic variance in terms of the graph topology and Dirichlet energy budget, linking epistemic collapse to the smoothing bias of message passing. Our results suggest that deep ensemble success does not seamlessly transfer to graph machine learning.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2605.22593 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.22593v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.22593 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 271 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Multi-Modal Spatio-Temporal Graph Neural Network with Mixture of Experts for Soil Organic Carbon Prediction
arXiv · 16 iun. 2026

Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · 14 sept. 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · 8 oct. 2026

Jefferson Lab’s AI spots trouble in fusion reactors
Quantum Zeitgeist · 13 aug. 2026