Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Constrained Edge AI Deployment: Fine-Tuning vs Distillation for LLM Compression

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that, under identical pruning schedules, KL-based self-distillation matches or exceeds cross-entropy fine-tuning when recovering pruned language models, and it isolates this effect by holding the pruning mechanism fixed.

desk verdict A plausible but underpowered empirical comparison; the distillation-vs-finetuning signal is consistent but needs error bars before the 3–5% claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18166 v1 pith:5BRSDESY submitted 2025-05-13 cs.LG

Jacob Sander , David Moe , Achraf Cohen , Brent Venable , Venkat Dasari , Brian Jalaian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords modelcompressionself-distillationknowledgedistillationstructuredpruningLLMedgeAIKLdivergencecross-entropyfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the loss function used to recover a pruned model matters more than the pruning scheme itself. Using a simple layer-wise L2-norm prune of only the MLP blocks of a 7-billion-parameter open language model, it compares cross-entropy fine-tuning (label-dependent) against KL-divergence self-distillation (label-free) on a commonsense question-answering task. Under identical pruning schedules, the paper reports that KL self-distillation matches or exceeds cross-entropy fine-tuning in test accuracy, achieving a 3–5% improvement at 50% parameter retention. If correct, this means edge deployments with limited labeled data can recover pruned models as well as or better than supervised fine-tuning, and with more stable output confidence.

What carries the argument

The isolating mechanism is a fixed pruning schedule: layer-wise L2-norm row selection on the UP and GATE matrices with matching column removal from the DOWN matrix of each MLP block, applied identically before either recovery loss. The comparison then isolates the loss: cross-entropy on one-hot labels (L2PFT) versus Kullback-Leibler divergence against precomputed teacher soft targets with temperature $T$ and a $T^2$ scaling factor (L2PSD). The paper argues that self-distillation's regularizing effect on weights makes the L2-norm importance scores more reliable, which is the route by which the loss function improves pruned-model recovery.

What would settle it

Run each retention level, especially 50%, with multiple random seeds and compute confidence intervals for the distillation-minus-fine-tuning accuracy difference; if the intervals overlap zero, the claimed advantage is unsupported. A complementary check is to repeat the 50% retention comparison on a different base model or QA benchmark and see whether the 3–5% improvement persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the choice of recovery loss, not the pruning criterion, dominates post-prune performance in this controlled setting. When the unpruned model acts as its own teacher and the pruned student is trained against soft targets via temperature-scaled KL divergence, the student stays on par with or ahead of a student fine-tuned on ground-truth labels across all pruning levels, and at 50% retention it is 3–5% more accurate. The distilled model's output entropy also stays roughly flat as pruning deepens, while the fine-tuned model becomes sharply overconfident, suggesting a calibration benefit. These results are presented as evidence that loss-function design is a first-order variable in compressed-model recovery, even when the pruning method is intentionally simple.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on single training runs per configuration; if run-to-run variation is comparable to the reported 2.5-to-5.5-point accuracy gaps, the claim that distillation matches or exceeds fine-tuning could evaporate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Label-free recovery: because KL distillation needs only teacher logits, pruned models can be restored in data-sparse or denied-connectivity settings without ground-truth labels.
  • Calibration benefit: self-distillation keeps prediction entropy stable down to about 60% retention, so confidence-based uncertainty flagging remains usable, unlike the overconfident outputs of fine-tuning.
  • Loss design matters: even with a naive MLP-only prune, the recovery loss produces measurable accuracy differences, implying that loss choice should be a primary consideration in compression pipelines.
  • Data scaling: more training data improves accuracy and lowers entropy uniformly for both pipelines, and the distillation advantage persists across data ablations from 25% to 100% of the training set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If self-distillation's advantage comes from flatter-minima regularization, combining KL recovery with multi-axis pruning (depth and embedding) could shrink the remaining gap to state-of-the-art pruned models; the paper notes its MLP-only pruning leaves only about 10% of MLP neurons at 50% retention.
  • A natural testable extension is to vary the teacher temperature and check whether the accuracy gap at 50% retention grows with softer targets, which would pinpoint the active mechanism behind the advantage.
  • The entropy-flatness result suggests distillation could improve downstream uncertainty quantification on edge devices, but the paper does not measure calibration error directly; an expected-calibration-error study would make that connection concrete.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares two post-pruning recovery losses for a 7B-parameter LLM, CE fine-tuning (L2PFT) and KL-divergence self-distillation (L2PSD), under a fixed MLP-only L2-norm pruning baseline. Experiments are run on OLMo2-7B-SFT for CommonsenseQA under four data-ablation levels (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% of the training set). The central empirical claim is that, at identical retention levels, self-distillation matches or exceeds CE fine-tuning in test accuracy, with a reported 3-5% improvement at 50% parameter retention; the authors attribute this to the regularizing effect of soft-target training and highlight the label-free advantage of distillation for edge deployments. The evidence consists of four tables reporting single-run accuracies, entropies, inference times, and FLOPs, plus two figures.

Significance. If the empirical claim were established with proper uncertainty quantification, the result would be practically relevant: it would suggest that label-free KL self-distillation is preferable to CE fine-tuning for recovering pruned LLMs in data-sparse edge settings, while also producing better-calibrated confidence (higher entropy at low retention). The paper's strengths are its direct, controlled comparison on a public model and dataset, the use of a simple and transparent pruning baseline, and the inclusion of deployment-oriented metrics (FLOPs, latency, entropy). There are no fitted parameters in the central claim, and the claim is falsifiable. However, the single-run protocol, the confound between loss and mask selection, and the incomplete reporting of training hyperparameters mean that the central conclusion is currently a plausible hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Tables 1-4 (50% retention rows)] The headline claim rests on a single accuracy number per condition. With a 1,140-example test set, the binomial standard error is roughly 1.3-1.4 percentage points for accuracies near 0.3-0.4, and the reported distillation advantages at 50% retention are 3.3, 5.5, 3.6, and 2.5 points across Tables 1-4. The smallest gap is therefore under two standard errors, and the runs differ not only in data fraction but also in unknown random seed and optimization trajectory. Because the fine-tuning runs show train accuracies of 0.645-0.898 versus 0.489-0.657 for distillation, the two procedures clearly occupy different regions of the optimization landscape, so run-to-run noise of the observed magnitude cannot be ruled out. Without seeds, confidence intervals, or a paired significance test, the abstract's 'matches or exceeds' and the conclusion's '3-5% improvement' are not yet supported.
  2. [Algorithms 2 and 3 (lines 3 and 8)] Both algorithms call Structured Pruning(F) inside each epoch, recomputing the L2-norm mask from the current model weights. Since the weights evolve differently under CE fine-tuning and KL distillation, the two pipelines differ in mask selection as well as in the recovery loss. The statement that the comparison is made 'under identical pruning schedules' therefore does not by itself isolate the loss function; it compares two joint procedures. A clean isolation would require fixing the mask before recovery and applying both losses to the same mask, or otherwise demonstrating that the masks selected by the two methods coincide.
  3. [Tables 1-4, 100% retention row] The unpruned model is reported with train accuracy 0.717 and test accuracy 0.747. Train accuracy below test accuracy is a sanity-check failure under standard evaluation protocols; it indicates that the train and test accuracies are not computed under the same protocol (for example, different prompting, a leakage issue, or an evaluation bug). Since the paper uses train accuracy to monitor overfitting, this inconsistency undermines the overfitting narrative built on the large train-test gaps observed at lower retention levels.
  4. [Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 4] The training configuration is severely under-specified: the temperature T in Eqs. (3)-(5) is never given a value, and no learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, optimizer, or number of gradient steps is reported. The four data ablations also differ in training set size, so the number of update steps presumably differs across tables, but this is not documented. Without these details the experiments cannot be reproduced, and the observed differences could reflect arbitrarily chosen hyperparameters rather than the loss function. The authors should report the full configuration and, ideally, a small sensitivity analysis over learning rate and temperature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3, 61% retention row] The reported distillation inference time of 4.309 s is roughly twice the neighboring values (2.038 s for fine-tuning and 2.045 s at 70% retention) and is likely a typo or a transient measurement; please verify.
  2. [Section 5 and Conclusion] The conclusion states a '3-5% improvement' at 50% retention, but the observed gaps in Tables 1-4 are 2.5, 3.3, 3.6, and 5.5 points; the wording should match the range actually reported.
  3. [Algorithm 2, line 6] There is a stray 'j' on the line after 'Compute Cross-Entropy loss as in (2)', which appears to be a typographical artifact.
  4. [Equation (1)] The weight notation is inconsistent: the text introduces 'wb (i,j)' and then uses 'W b (i,j)' and 'W b (i)'; please unify the subscripts and superscripts so that the norm computation is unambiguous.
  5. [Section 4, metric definitions] The description of accuracy on the training set says it is used 'to monitor overfitting', but the paper does not state how the training accuracy is computed (for example, whether the same two-shot prompt template and answer extraction are used as for the test set); this should be clarified, especially in light of the 100% retention anomaly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central claim is a measured comparison of two retraining losses under a fixed pruning protocol; the only author self-citation is background and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—'Under identical pruning schedules, KL-based distillation matches or exceeds CE fine-tuning in test accuracy'—is an empirical outcome of a controlled experiment, not a derivation from fitted inputs. Both L2PFT and L2PSD start from the same unpruned OLMo2-7B-SFT checkpoint and use the same layer-wise L2-norm pruning schedule applied epoch-wise to the MLP rows; the manipulated variable is the recovery loss (cross-entropy in Eq. 2 vs. KL divergence in Eq. 5). The concluding '3-5% improvement at 50% parameter retention' is read directly from Tables 1-4, for example at 100% data the 50%-retention test accuracies are 0.365 for fine-tuning versus 0.390 for distillation, and at 25% data 0.234 versus 0.267. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then renamed as a prediction. The only author self-citation is reference [4], used in the introduction as survey background: 'comprehensive surveys cover model compression and edge AI strategies in depth [4, 5].' It does not supply a theorem, ansatz, or uniqueness argument, so it is not load-bearing. The paper explicitly disclaims SoTA status in the Discussion ('We acknowledge that these pruning results do not represent SoTA pruning-based compression'), which is a limitation, not a circular step. The absence of seeds, confidence intervals, and significance tests is a statistical robustness concern for the reported accuracy gaps, but it does not make the empirical comparison equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard distillation math and several domain assumptions: L2 norm as an importance score, fixed teacher logits, MLP-only pruning as a fair baseline, and single-run evaluation. No invented entities are introduced. The main free parameters are unreported training and distillation hyperparameters plus the chosen pruning and data-ablation schedules, making the quantitative result hard to reproduce without contacting the authors.

free parameters (5)
  • Temperature T for softmax/KL distillation = Not reported
    Appears in Equations 3-5 and sets the softness of teacher and student targets; no value or tuning procedure is given, so the distillation comparison could depend on an arbitrary choice.
  • Pruning retention schedule = [100%, 91%, 81%, 70%, 61%, 50%]
    The iterative pruning targets chosen for both pipelines; the 'identical schedule' is defined by these rates, and the headline 3-5% claim is evaluated at 50% retention.
  • Training hyperparameters (learning rate, epochs, batch size, optimizer) = Not reported
    Central to reproducing the recovery results; absent from the paper, so the magnitude of the distillation advantage is not tied to a specific reproducible configuration.
  • Data ablation fractions = [25%, 50%, 75%, 100%]
    Hand-chosen subsamples of CommonsenseQA training data used to test data-sparse regimes; results at each fraction vary, so the claim depends on these specific fractions.
  • Number of in-context examples (shots) = 2
    The two-shot prompting strategy affects baseline accuracy; no prompt template is provided, so the exact evaluation protocol is underspecified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption L2 norm of GATE and UP weight rows is a meaningful importance score for pruning MLP neurons
    Section 3.1 assumes that removing rows with the smallest average L2 norm and the corresponding DOWN columns preserves accuracy; this is a heuristic, not derived.
  • standard math Temperature-scaled softmax and KL divergence with T^2 factor provide a valid distillation objective
    Equations 3-5 follow Hinton et al.'s distillation framework; treated as standard.
  • domain assumption Precomputed teacher logits from the unpruned model remain valid soft targets across all pruning iterations
    Algorithm 3 stores logits once and reuses them; this assumes the original model's predictions are appropriate supervision for the heavily pruned student.
  • domain assumption MLP-block-only structured pruning is a fair fixed baseline for comparing recovery losses
    The paper explicitly limits pruning to MLP rows and columns; the claim is scoped to this baseline, not to full Transformer pruning.
  • domain assumption Single-run evaluation on OLMo2-7B-SFT and CommonsenseQA is representative
    No seeds or repeated runs; generality to other models and tasks is assumed in the conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constrained Edge AI Deployment: Fine-Tuning vs Distillation for LLM Compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BRSDESY

@misc{pith2026250518166,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constrained Edge AI Deployment: Fine-Tuning vs Distillation for LLM Compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BRSDESY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18166}
}
read the original abstract

Modern foundational models are often compressed via a combination of structured pruning and re-training to meet the strict compute, memory, and connectivity constraints of edge deployments. While state-of-the-art pruning schemes target the entire Transformer, we adopt a simple, layer-wise L2-norm pruning on only the MLP blocks as a fixed baseline. Our focus is not on achieving maximal compression, but on isolating the impact of the re-training loss function: (i) Fine-tuning with Cross- Entropy (L2PFT), which requires labeled data, versus (ii) Self-Distillation with KL-divergence, which leverages only teacher logits (no labels) (L2PSD). We evaluate both pipelines on the OLMo2- 7B-SFT model for CommonsenseQA suitable for intermittent or denied connectivity scenarios typical of edge networks. Under identical pruning schedules, KL-based distillation matches or exceeds CE fine-tuning in test accuracy, demonstrating that, even with a basic MLP-only pruning, the choice of loss function materially affects compressed model recovery in resource-constrained environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18166 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Entropy and Data Ablation; Distillation and Fine Tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Test Accuracy and Data Ablation; Distillation and Fine Tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Large-scale artificial intelligence models.Computer, 55(5):76–80, May 2022

    Hsiao-Ying Lin. Large-scale artificial intelligence models.Computer, 55(5):76–80, May 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Neural architecture search: Insights from 1000 papers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08727, 2023

    Colin White, Mahmoud Safari, Rhea Sukthanker, Binxin Ru, Thomas Elsken, Arber Zela, Debadeepta Dey, and Frank Hutter. Neural architecture search: Insights from 1000 papers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08727, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Edgeshard: Efficient llm inference via collaborative edge computing.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pages 1–1, 2024

    Mingjin Zhang, Xiaoming Shen, Jiannong Cao, Zeyang Cui, and Shan Jiang. Edgeshard: Efficient llm inference via collaborative edge computing.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, pages 1–1, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    On accelerating edge ai: Optimizing resource-constrained environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15014, 2025

    Jacob Sander, Achraf Cohen, Venkat R Dasari, Brent Venable, and Brian Jalaian. On accelerating edge ai: Optimizing resource-constrained environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15014, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Edge AI: A survey.Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 2023

    Raghubir Singh and Sukhpal Singh Gill. Edge AI: A survey.Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network, 2015

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    EPSD: Early pruning with self-distillation for efficient model compression, 2024

    Dong Chen, Ning Liu, Yichen Zhu, Zhengping Che, Rui Ma, Fachao Zhang, Xiaofeng Mou, Yi Chang, and Jian Tang. EPSD: Early pruning with self-distillation for efficient model compression, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Springer International Publishing, 2023

    James O’ Neill, Sourav Dutta, and Haytham Assem.Self-distilled Pruning of Deep Neural Networks, page 655–670. Springer International Publishing, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Self-data distillation for recovering quality in pruned large language models, 2024

    Vithursan Thangarasa, Ganesh Venkatesh, Mike Lasby, Nish Sinnadurai, and Sean Lie. Self-data distillation for recovering quality in pruned large language models, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Llm Pruning and Distillation in Practice: The Minitron Approach.arXiv.org, 2024

    Sharath Turuvekere Sreenivas, Saurav Muralidharan, Raviraj Joshi, Marcin Chochowski, Ameya Sunil Maha- baleshwarkar, Gerald Shen, Jiaqi Zeng, Zijia Chen, Yoshi Suhara, Shizhe Diao, Chenhan Yu, Wei-Chun Chen, Hayley Ross, Oluwatobi Olabiyi, Ashwath Aithal, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Dan...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Stochastic gradient descent performs variational inference, converges to limit cycles for deep networks.IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2018

    Pratik Chaudhari and Stefano Soatto. Stochastic gradient descent performs variational inference, converges to limit cycles for deep networks.IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Ugur Guney, Yann Dauphin, and Leon Bottou

    Levent Sagun, Utku Evci, V . Ugur Guney, Yann Dauphin, and Leon Bottou. Empirical analysis of the hessian of over-parametrized neural networks.Workshop at International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Revisiting self-distillation, 2022

    Minh Pham, Minsu Cho, Ameya Joshi, and Chinmay Hegde. Revisiting self-distillation, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Random teachers are good teachers

    Felix Sarnthein, Gregor Bachmann, Sotiris Anagnostidis, and Thomas Hofmann. Random teachers are good teachers. 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Comparing kullback-leibler divergence and mean squared error loss in knowledge distillation

    Taehyeon Kim, Jaehoon Oh, Nak Yil Kim, Sangwook Cho, and Se-Young Yun. Comparing kullback-leibler divergence and mean squared error loss in knowledge distillation. InProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-2021, page 2628–2...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Self-distillation amplifies regularization in hilbert space

    Hossein Mobahi, Mehrdad Farajtabar, and Peter Bartlett. Self-distillation amplifies regularization in hilbert space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3351–3361, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Optimal brain damage.Advances in neural information processing systems, 2, 1989

    Yann LeCun, John Denker, and Sara Solla. Optimal brain damage.Advances in neural information processing systems, 2, 1989

    1989

  10. [18]

    Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877–...

    1901

  12. [20]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 8 Fine-Tuning vs. Distillation for LLM Compression

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Team OLMo, Pete Walsh, Luca Soldaini, Dirk Groeneveld, Kyle Lo, Shane Arora, Akshita Bhagia, Yuling Gu, Shengyi Huang, Matt Jordan, Nathan Lambert, Dustin Schwenk, Oyvind Tafjord, Taira Anderson, David Atkinson, Faeze Brahman, Christopher Clark, Pradeep Dasigi, Nouha Dziri, Mi...

    2024

  15. [23]

    CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge

    Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Languag...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Nee- lakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Je...

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ptflops: a flops counting tool for neural networks in pytorch framework, 2024

    Vladislav Sovrasov. ptflops: a flops counting tool for neural networks in pytorch framework, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot

    Elias Frantar and Dan Alistarh. Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot. (arXiv:2301.00774), March 2023. arXiv:2301.00774 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A survey on uncertainty quantification methods for deep learning, 2025

    Wenchong He, Zhe Jiang, Tingsong Xiao, Zelin Xu, and Yukun Li. A survey on uncertainty quantification methods for deep learning, 2025. 9

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.