▲ | duvenaud 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I agree that Bayesian neural networks haven't been worth it in practice for many applications, but I think the main problem is that it's usually better to spend your compute training a single set of weights for a larger model, rather than doing approximate inference over weights in a smaller model. The exception is probably scientific applications where you mostly know the model, but then you don't really need a neural net anymore. Choosing a prior is hard, but I'd say it's analogously hard to choosing an architecture - if all else fails, you can do a brute force search, and you even have the marginal likelihood to guide you. I don't think it's the main reason why people don't use BNNs much. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | dkga 4 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I disagree with one conceptual point; if you are truly Bayesian you don’t “choose” a prior, by definition you “already have” a prior that you are updating with data to get to a posterior. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|