Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The fine print on tempered posteriors

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2309.05292 v1 pith:OYSN3RP7 submitted 2023-09-11 cs.LG stat.ML

The fine print on tempered posteriors

classification cs.LG stat.ML
keywords modelstemperatureaccuracybayesiancontrarylambdaposteriorsprior
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We conduct a detailed investigation of tempered posteriors and uncover a number of crucial and previously undiscussed points. Contrary to previous results, we first show that for realistic models and datasets and the tightly controlled case of the Laplace approximation to the posterior, stochasticity does not in general improve test accuracy. The coldest temperature is often optimal. One might think that Bayesian models with some stochasticity can at least obtain improvements in terms of calibration. However, we show empirically that when gains are obtained this comes at the cost of degradation in test accuracy. We then discuss how targeting Frequentist metrics using Bayesian models provides a simple explanation of the need for a temperature parameter $\lambda$ in the optimization objective. Contrary to prior works, we finally show through a PAC-Bayesian analysis that the temperature $\lambda$ cannot be seen as simply fixing a misspecified prior or likelihood.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.