跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.35484 · v1

Evaluating Bayesian deep learning for robust biomedical time-series classification under distribution shift: A sleep scoring case study

首次提交 2026-10-26 22:14
版本更新 2026-10-26 22:14
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

In biomedical time-series classification, machine learning models often suffer from deteriorating accuracy and calibration due to distribution shift. We investigate to what degree Bayesian-inspired deep learning improves robustness through Bayesian model averaging (BMA). Using rodent sleep scoring as a case study, we evaluate BMA under distribution shifts in genotype, laboratory, and species. We systematically compare nine approximate inference methods spanning single- and multi-basin approaches across two neural network backbones on in-distribution (ID) data and five out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets. In our results, multi-basin methods perform best, outperforming baselines and single-basin methods. Compared with point estimates, BMA generally improves OOD accuracy and calibration across both architectures, while yielding only modest ID gains. It also often improves selective prediction and OOD and artifact detection, but, interestingly, not inter-rater disagreement detection.

作者备注:28 pages (8 pages main text), 8 figures, 15 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-26 22:14 · 最新观测版本

Evaluating Bayesian deep learning for robust biomedical time-series classification under distribution shift: A sleep scoring case study

In biomedical time-series classification, machine learning models often suffer from deteriorating accuracy and calibration due to distribution shift. We investigate to what degree Bayesian-inspired deep learning improves robustness through Bayesian model averaging (BMA). Using rodent sleep scoring as a case study, we evaluate BMA under distribution shifts in genotype, laboratory, and species. We systematically compare nine approximate inference methods spanning single- and multi-basin approaches across two neural network backbones on in-distribution (ID) data and five out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets. In our results, multi-basin methods perform best, outperforming baselines and single-basin methods. Compared with point estimates, BMA generally improves OOD accuracy and calibration across both architectures, while yielding only modest ID gains. It also often improves selective prediction and OOD and artifact detection, but, interestingly, not inter-rater disagreement detection.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗