arXiv:2603. 27270v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Credal sets, i.
arXiv:2504. 18433v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Uncertainty quantification is crucial in machine learning, yet most (axiomatic) studies of uncertainty measures focus on classification, leaving a gap in regression settings with limited formal justification and evaluations.
arXiv:2509. 08846v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluation of per-sample uncertainty quantification from neural networks is essential for decision-making involving high-risk applications.
arXiv:2607. 15196v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present a novel viewpoint for uncertainty quantification.
arXiv:2505. 19033v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Conformal prediction (CP) is a widely used frequentist framework to quantify uncertainty by constructing prediction sets with user-specified marginal coverage guarantees.
arXiv:2607. 14817v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current evaluation of epistemic uncertainty relies on tasks such as out-ofdistribution detection and active learning.
arXiv:2606. 10777v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying machine learning models in high-stakes settings.
arXiv:2607. 28248v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The deployment of deep neural networks in safety-critical domains demands reliable estimates of predictive confidence, yet conventional architectures lack principled uncertainty quantification.
The paper introduces techniques for measuring the robustness of predictions made by two generative classifiers—naive Bayes classifiers and generative forests—whose underlying models are probabilistic graphical models. Robustness is defined as the degree to which the classifier’s distribution can be perturbed without altering its prediction, with perturbations explored via epsilon‑contamination, total variation distance, and chi‑squared divergence neighborhoods. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that the computed robustness values can serve as indicators of prediction trustworthiness and are compared against other existing indicators.
arXiv:2603. 23318v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Among the different possible strategies for evaluating the reliability of individual predictions of classifiers, robustness quantification stands out as a method that evaluates how much uncertainty a classifier could cope with before changing its prediction.
The paper introduces a method for learning from multiple experts who provide interval labels, addressing both within‑label imprecision and between‑expert variation. It harmonizes diverse label vocabularies into a shared probabilistic space, retains individual intervals using a mixture of Beta distributions, and decomposes predictive uncertainty into components that are matched to their corresponding sources of label uncertainty. On sea‑ice concentration data, the approach achieves a 31% reduction in mean absolute error compared to hard‑label baselines and outperforms several aggregation and interval‑regression methods.
arXiv:2608.23960v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Missing labels are usually regarded as a source of information loss in classification. We study a semi-supervised setting in which the probability of...
The paper introduces the concept of observational multiplicity, where multiple probabilistic classifiers can perform similarly yet produce conflicting predictions, undermining interpretability and safety. It proposes measuring this arbitrariness through a regret metric that captures how predictions could shift with different training labels. The authors present a general method to estimate regret, show it varies across dataset groups, and discuss its use for safety via abstention and targeted data collection.