Certainty-Validity: A Diagnostic Framework for Discrete Commitment Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00070v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 21:53:02 GMT
• Title: Certainty-Validity: A Diagnostic Framework for Discrete Commitment Systems
• Abstract summary: "Machine learning evaluation metrics" assume that all errors are equivalent discrete commitment systems.<n>"ConfidentIncorrect" behavior is where models hallucinate structure in ambiguous data.<n>"Good training" for reasoning systems must be defined not by accuracy but by maximizing the Certainty-Validity Score.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Standard evaluation metrics for machine learning -- accuracy, precision, recall, and AUROC -- assume that all errors are equivalent: a confident incorrect prediction is penalized identically to an uncertain one. For discrete commitment systems (architectures that select committed states {-W, 0, +W}), this assumption is epistemologically flawed. We introduce the Certainty-Validity (CVS) Framework, a diagnostic method that decomposes model performance into a 2x2 matrix distinguishing high/low certainty from valid/invalid predictions. This framework reveals a critical failure mode hidden by standard accuracy: Confident-Incorrect (CI) behavior, where models hallucinate structure in ambiguous data. Through ablation experiments on Fashion-MNIST, EMNIST, and IMDB, we analyze the "83% Ambiguity Ceiling" -- a stopping point where this specific discrete architecture consistently plateaus on noisy benchmarks. Unlike continuous models that can surpass this ceiling by memorizing texture or statistical noise, the discrete model refuses to commit to ambiguous samples. We show that this refusal is not a failure but a feature: the model stops where structural evidence ends. However, standard training on ambiguous data eventually forces Benign Overfitting, causing a pathological migration from Uncertain-Incorrect (appropriate doubt) to Confident-Incorrect (hallucination). We propose that "good training" for reasoning systems must be defined not by accuracy, but by maximizing the Certainty-Validity Score (CVS) -- ensuring the model knows where to stop.

Related papers

• DriftScope: Measuring The Hidden Effects of Diffusion Model Adaptation [50.584834483403675]
  Adapting pre-trained text-to-image diffusion models, whether to learn new visual concepts or erase unwanted ones, is routinely evaluated on its intended effects alone.<n>We demonstrate that adaptation systematically damages semantically unrelated concepts in ways that aggregate metrics structurally cannot surface.<n>We introduce DriftScope, a prompt-level diagnostic tool that takes any two model checkpoints and returns a ranked list of tokens whose visual concepts have shifted most between them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T20:57:51Z)
• Set-Inclusive Uncertainty Modeling for Robust Brain Tumor Segmentation [17.88630413987641]
  We propose a probabilistic representation framework that models representations as Gaussian distributions.<n>We regularize the mean from each partial configuration toward its full-modality counterpart, while scaling the variance with the discrepancy between their aligned means.<n>Experiments on BraTS 2018 and 2020 demonstrate that our approach offers superior performance over baselines across diverse missing-modality scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T14:35:55Z)
• Sensitivity Uncertainty Alignment in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We propose a framework for analyzing failures of large language models under adversarial and ambiguous inputs.<n>We define a scalar score, SUA_theta(x), capturing the difference between distributional sensitivity and predictive entropy.<n>We introduce SUA-TR, a training method combining consistency regularization and entropy alignment, along with an abstention rule for safer inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T17:53:12Z)
• CUPID: A Plug-in Framework for Joint Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation with a Single Model [1.6855257501750571]
  CUPID (Comprehensive Uncertainty Plug-in estImation moDel) is a general-purpose module that jointly estimates aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty without modifying or retraining the base model.<n>We evaluate CUPID across a range of tasks, including classification, regression, and out-of-distribution detection.<n>The results show that CUPID consistently delivers competitive performance while offering layer-wise insights into the origins of uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T13:18:10Z)
• Decomposed Prompting Does Not Fix Knowledge Gaps, But Helps Models Say "I Don't Know" [47.930782177987446]
  Large language models often struggle to recognize their knowledge limits in closed-book question answering, leading to confident hallucinations.<n>We evaluate three task-equivalent prompting regimes: Direct, Assistive, and Incremental, across different model scales and multi-hop QA benchmarks.<n>Because factual knowledge is stable while hallucinations are agreement, cross-regime provides a precise signal of internal uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T18:39:58Z)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• The Illusion of Certainty: Uncertainty quantification for LLMs fails under ambiguity [48.899855816199484]
  We introduce MAQA* and AmbigQA*, the first ambiguous question-answering (QA) datasets equipped with ground-truth answer distributions.<n>We show that predictive-distribution and ensemble-based estimators are fundamentally limited under ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T14:46:35Z)
• Error-Driven Uncertainty Aware Training [7.702016079410588]
  Error-Driven Uncertainty Aware Training aims to enhance the ability of neural classifiers to estimate their uncertainty correctly. The EUAT approach operates during the model's training phase by selectively employing two loss functions depending on whether the training examples are correctly or incorrectly predicted. We evaluate EUAT using diverse neural models and datasets in the image recognition domains considering both non-adversarial and adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T11:48:14Z)
• Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology [43.8328264420381]
  We show that ignoring uncertainty leads to overly optimistic estimates of model performance.<n>In skin condition classification, we find that a large portion of the dataset exhibits significant ground truth uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T10:33:45Z)
• The Implicit Delta Method [61.36121543728134]
  In this paper, we propose an alternative, the implicit delta method, which works by infinitesimally regularizing the training loss of uncertainty. We show that the change in the evaluation due to regularization is consistent for the variance of the evaluation estimator, even when the infinitesimal change is approximated by a finite difference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T19:34:17Z)
• Reliability-Aware Prediction via Uncertainty Learning for Person Image Retrieval [51.83967175585896]
  UAL aims at providing reliability-aware predictions by considering data uncertainty and model uncertainty simultaneously. Data uncertainty captures the noise" inherent in the sample, while model uncertainty depicts the model's confidence in the sample's prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T17:53:20Z)
• Evaluating Aleatoric Uncertainty via Conditional Generative Models [15.494774321257939]
  We study conditional generative models for aleatoric uncertainty estimation. We introduce two metrics to measure the discrepancy between two conditional distributions. We demonstrate numerically how our metrics provide correct measurements of conditional distributional discrepancies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-09T05:39:04Z)
• Dense Uncertainty Estimation via an Ensemble-based Conditional Latent Variable Model [68.34559610536614]
  We argue that the aleatoric uncertainty is an inherent attribute of the data and can only be correctly estimated with an unbiased oracle model. We propose a new sampling and selection strategy at train time to approximate the oracle model for aleatoric uncertainty estimation. Our results show that our solution achieves both accurate deterministic results and reliable uncertainty estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-22T08:54:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.