ML4WX

Explainability, uncertainty & physics

Controlled abstention neural networks for identifying skillful predictions for classification problems

Elizabeth A. Barnes, Randal J. Barnes

arXiv preprint ·

PaperPDF

In one sentence. The NotWrong loss adds an abstention class so classifiers learn from confident samples, outperforming existing losses on several climate prediction tasks.

Abstract

The earth system is exceedingly complex and often chaotic in nature, making prediction incredibly challenging: we cannot expect to make perfect predictions all of the time. Instead, we look for specific states of the system that lead to more predictable behavior than others, often termed "forecasts of opportunity." When these opportunities are not present, scientists need prediction systems that are capable of saying "I don't know." We introduce a novel loss function, termed the "NotWrong loss", that allows neural networks to identify forecasts of opportunity for classification problems. The NotWrong loss introduces an abstention class that allows the network to identify the more confident samples and abstain (say "I don't know") on the less confident samples. The abstention loss is designed to abstain on a user-defined fraction of the samples via a PID controller. Unlike many machine learning methods used to reject samples post-training, the NotWrong loss is applied during training to preferentially learn from the more confident samples. We show that the NotWrong loss outperforms other existing loss functions for multiple climate use cases. The implementation of the proposed loss function is straightforward in most network architectures designed for classification as it only requires the addition of an abstention class to the output layer and modification of the loss function.

Labels

Topic
Explainability, uncertainty & physics
Type
New model or method
Method
Other
Data
Other
Status
Research
Identifiers
arXiv:2104.08281 DOI:10.1029/2021ms002573
Added
2026-10-22

Labels and summary are generated by Claude and reviewed weekly. Wrong? Edit this entry.