A Tale of Two Variances: When Single-Seed Benchmarks Fail in Bayesian Deep Learning

In limited-data settings, a single endpoint mean of an evaluation metric such as the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS) is itself a random variable, yet it is routinely reported as if it were a stable property of the method. We study when this practice fails. Using 50 independent repetitions across six regression datasets, we show that CRPS variance trajectories differ substantially across methods and are not always well described by a smooth power-law decay. Methods with a learned heteroscedastic variance head, namely MAP and Deep Ensembles, can develop pronounced, reproducible variance peaks at intermediate training sizes on real datasets, whereas MC Dropout and Bayes by Backprop typically show smooth variance contraction. These peaks have direct practical consequences: at the variance peak on Seoul Bike, the relative RMSE of a single-seed MAP estimate reaches 93.6\%, and the probability of falling within \(\pm 10\%\) of the repeated-run mean drops to 5.9\%. We show that local CRPS variance provides a direct signal of single-seed estimation error, with Spearman correlations above 0.96 on every real dataset. Power-law fit quality and monotonicity together provide compact method-level summaries of trajectory regularity. Finally, replacing the standard heteroscedastic objective with \(β\)-NLL substantially reduces the irregular behavior, consistent with the view that the heteroscedastic training objective contributes to the instability. Practitioners should report trajectory summaries alongside endpoint means and concentrate repeated evaluation in high-variance regions.

Unstable Rankings in Bayesian Deep Learning Evaluation

Standard evaluations of Bayesian deep learning methods assume that metric estimates are reliable, but we show this assumption fails under data scarcity. Method rankings are not only unreliable at small $n$, but also dataset-dependent in ways that point estimates cannot reveal: the same method comparison yields $P(\mathrm{MCD} \prec \mathrm{Ensemble}) = 1.000$ at $n = 50$ on one dataset and remains below $0.95$ even at $n = 500$ on another. Across the datasets we consider, no universal sample size threshold exists, which is precisely why dataset-specific posterior inference is necessary. To address this, we use a Bayesian hierarchical model with method-specific variances to treat evaluation metrics as random variables across data realizations, and we use a predictive Minimum Detectable Difference curve to assess whether an observed gap would be detectable at a given training size. Across six Bayesian deep learning methods and five regression datasets, our results show that uncertainty-aware evaluation is necessary in low-data settings, because current evidence for method superiority and predictive detectability at the same training size can diverge substantially. Our framework provides practitioners with principled tools to determine whether their evaluation data is sufficient before drawing conclusions about method superiority.

Reinforcement Learning for Option Hedging: Static Implied-Volatility Fit versus Shortfall-Aware Performance

We extend the Q-learner in Black-Scholes (QLBS) framework by incorporating risk aversion and trading costs, and propose a novel Replication Learning of Option Pricing (RLOP) approach. Both methods are fully compatible with standard reinforcement learning algorithms and operate under market frictions. Using SPY and XOP option data, we evaluate performance along static and dynamic dimensions. Adaptive-QLBS achieves higher static pricing accuracy in implied volatility space, while RLOP delivers superior dynamic hedging performance by reducing shortfall probability. These results highlight the importance of evaluating option pricing models beyond static fit, emphasizing realized hedging outcomes.