Cold Posteriors and Aleatoric Uncertainty
  Recent work has observed that one can outperform exact inference in Bayesian
neural networks by tuning the "temperature" of the posterior on a validation
set (the "cold posterior" effect). To help interpret this phenomenon, we argue
that commonly used priors in Bayesian neural networks can significantly
overestimate the aleatoric uncertainty in the labels on many classification
datasets. This problem is particularly pronounced in academic benchmarks like
MNIST or CIFAR, for which the quality of the labels is high. For the special
case of Gaussian process regression, any positive temperature corresponds to a
valid posterior under a modified prior, and tuning this temperature is directly
analogous to empirical Bayes. On classification tasks, there is no direct
equivalence between modifying the prior and tuning the temperature, however
reducing the temperature can lead to models which better reflect our belief
that one gains little information by relabeling existing examples in the
training set. Therefore although cold posteriors do not always correspond to an
exact inference procedure, we believe they may often better reflect our true
prior beliefs.
