Nina Maria Gottschling

Nils Lehmann, Nina Maria Gottschling, Stefan Depeweg et al.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have been successfully applied to earth observation (EO) data and opened new research avenues. Despite the theoretical and practical advances of these techniques, DNNs are still considered black box tools and by default are designed to give point predictions. However, the majority of EO applications demand reliable uncertainty estimates that can support practitioners in critical decision making tasks. This work provides a theoretical and quantitative comparison of existing uncertainty quantification methods for DNNs applied to the task of wind speed estimation in satellite imagery of tropical cyclones. We provide a detailed evaluation of predictive uncertainty estimates from state-of-the-art uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods for DNNs. We find that predictive uncertainties can be utilized to further improve accuracy and analyze the predictive uncertainties of different methods across storm categories.

Nina M. Gottschling, Vegard Antun, Anders C. Hansen et al.

Methods inspired by Artificial Intelligence (AI) are starting to fundamentally change computational science and engineering through breakthrough performances on challenging problems. However, reliability and trustworthiness of such techniques is a major concern. In inverse problems in imaging, the focus of this paper, there is increasing empirical evidence that methods may suffer from hallucinations, i.e., false, but realistic-looking artifacts; instability, i.e., sensitivity to perturbations in the data; and unpredictable generalization, i.e., excellent performance on some images, but significant deterioration on others. This paper provides a theoretical foundation for these phenomena. We give mathematical explanations for how and when such effects arise in arbitrary reconstruction methods, with several of our results taking the form of `no free lunch' theorems. Specifically, we show that (i) methods that overperform on a single image can wrongly transfer details from one image to another, creating a hallucination, (ii) methods that overperform on two or more images can hallucinate or be unstable, (iii) optimizing the accuracy-stability trade-off is generally difficult, (iv) hallucinations and instabilities, if they occur, are not rare events, and may be encouraged by standard training, (v) it may be impossible to construct optimal reconstruction maps for certain problems. Our results trace these effects to the kernel of the forward operator whenever it is nontrivial, but also apply to the case when the forward operator is ill-conditioned. Based on these insights, our work aims to spur research into new ways to develop robust and reliable AI-based methods for inverse problems in imaging.