Nairanjana Dasgupta

Soumojit Das, Nairanjana Dasgupta, Prashanta Dutta

Modern artificial intelligence systems make critical decisions yet often fail silently when uncertain -- even well-calibrated models provide no mechanism to identify \textit{which specific predictions} are unreliable. We develop a geometric framework addressing both calibration and instance-level uncertainty quantification for neural network probability outputs. Treating probability vectors as points on the $(c-1)$-dimensional probability simplex equipped with the Fisher--Rao metric, we construct: (i) Additive Log-Ratio (ALR) calibration maps that reduce exactly to Platt scaling for binary problems while extending naturally to multi-class settings, and (ii) geometric reliability scores that translate calibrated probabilities into actionable uncertainty measures, enabling principled deferral of ambiguous predictions to human review. Theoretical contributions include: consistency of the calibration estimator at rate $O_p(n^{-1/2})$ via M-estimation theory (Theorem~1), and tight concentration bounds for reliability scores with explicit sub-Gaussian parameters enabling sample size calculations for validation set design (Theorem~2). We conjecture Neyman--Pearson optimality of our neutral zone construction based on connections to Bhattacharyya coefficients. Empirical validation on Adeno-Associated Virus classification demonstrates that the two-stage framework captures 72.5\% of errors while deferring 34.5\% of samples, reducing automated decision error rates from 16.8\% to 6.9\%. Notably, calibration alone yields marginal accuracy gains; the operational benefit arises primarily from the reliability scoring mechanism, which applies to any well-calibrated probability output. This work bridges information geometry and statistical learning, offering formal guarantees for uncertainty-aware classification in applications requiring rigorous validation.

Eric Silk, Swarnita Chakraborty, Nairanjana Dasgupta et al.

Training deep neural networks (DNNs) used in modern machine learning is computationally expensive. Machine learning scientists, therefore, rely on stochastic first-order methods for training, coupled with significant hand-tuning, to obtain good performance. To better understand performance variability of different stochastic algorithms, including second-order methods, we conduct an empirical study that treats performance as a response variable across multiple training sessions of the same model. Using 2-factor Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with interactions, we show that batch size used during training has a statistically significant effect on the peak accuracy of the methods, and that full batch largely performed the worst. In addition, we found that second-order optimizers (SOOs) generally exhibited significantly lower variance at specific batch sizes, suggesting they may require less hyperparameter tuning, leading to a reduced overall time to solution for model training.