ArticleNature communications2026
Reliable uncertainty estimates in deep learning with efficient Metropolis-Hastings algorithms.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approaching problems with data-driven models often requires reliable uncertainty estimates. Bayesian neural networks can offer these for deep learning models. Without the knowledge to set informative prior distributions, sampling methods such as Hamiltonian Monte Carlo are a robust choice. However, these come with prohibitive computational costs. We study two ways to incorporate computationally light-weight Metropolis-Hastings acceptance steps into deep neural networks and stochastic gradient Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. The first method proposes noisy acceptance steps computed on batched training samples rather than the entire set during the simulation of the stochastic dynamics accepting a small minima preserving bias. The second method sacrifices bias-free sampling of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo in favor of stochastic gradient driven trajectories. While the first is analytically plausible, the second is inspired by the Hamiltonian ensemble concept. Prediction accuracy is improved by up to 5.8% over deterministic and by up to 4.3% over Bayesian approaches while still guaranteeing calibration of the predictions. We observe that sampling methods facilitate model predictions with merely a third of the ensemble while maintaining prediction accuracy. In conclusion, the methods combine efficiency and regularization of stochastic gradients, showing strong performance despite the sampling bias.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.