Evaluating Epistemic Uncertainty: Beyond OOD Detection and Active Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14817v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:35:56 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Epistemic Uncertainty: Beyond OOD Detection and Active Learning
• Abstract summary: Bayes-optimal decision strategies for tasks do not coincide with the scores commonly used to quantify uncertainty.<n>We evaluate uncertainty using its ability to identify regret, the reducible error.<n>We show that standard correlation metrics between learned components do not necessarily predict their actual operational utility.<n>We propose to evaluate the achievable risk, regret, coverage surface of the decomposition as a diagnostic for joint disentanglement and utility.
• Score: 29.285132690069375
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Current evaluation of epistemic uncertainty relies on tasks such as out-ofdistribution detection and active learning. However, the Bayes-optimal decision strategies for these tasks do not coincide with the scores commonly used to quantify epistemic uncertainty. Building on the epistemic reject-option framework, we evaluate epistemic uncertainty using its ability to identify regret, the reducible error. Formulating selective prediction as a constrained optimization over coverage, expected risk, and regret, we prove the optimal selector is a thresholded convex combination of the ground-truth aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. This theoretical unification exposes a weakness in recent uncertainty disentanglement literature: we demonstrate that standard correlation metrics between learned components do not necessarily predict their actual operational utility. We instead propose to evaluate the achievable risk, regret, coverage surface of the decomposition as a diagnostic for joint disentanglement and utility. Benchmarking standard methods on datasets with dense human annotations reveals that decision-theoretic rankings can disagree substantially with proxy-task rankings, including pairwise rank inversions between methods that are top-ranked on one criterion and bottom-ranked on other.

Related papers

• A Unified Risk View of Uncertainty: Posterior Risk for Disentanglement and Evaluation Beyond Proxies [2.854451361373021]
  We propose a unified definition of uncertainty as pointwise posterior risk, the expected loss of a predictor under the distribution of plausible ground-truth functions.<n>This view combines Bayesian uncertainty over functions with estimator-dependent deviations from the posterior mean, capturing effects such as misspecification and optimization error.<n>By avoiding proxy evaluations, the benchmark enables fine-grained analysis of uncertainty estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T13:05:16Z)
• Entropy Alone is Insufficient for Safe Selective Prediction in LLMs [20.664633053172327]
  Selective prediction systems can mitigate harms resulting from language model hallucinations by abstaining from answering in high-risk cases.<n>Uncertainty quantification techniques are often employed to identify such cases, but are rarely evaluated in the context of the wider selective prediction policy.<n>We identify a model-dependent failure mode of entropy-based uncertainty methods that leads to unreliable abstention behaviour, and address it by combining entropy scores with a correctness probe signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-22T11:27:13Z)
• Towards Reliable LLM-based Robot Planning via Combined Uncertainty Estimation [68.106428321492]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate advanced reasoning abilities, enabling robots to understand natural language instructions and generate high-level plans with appropriate grounding.<n>LLMs hallucinations present a significant challenge, often leading to overconfident yet potentially misaligned or unsafe plans.<n>We present Combined Uncertainty estimation for Reliable Embodied planning (CURE), which decomposes the uncertainty into epistemic and intrinsic uncertainty, each estimated separately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T10:26:58Z)
• Addressing Pitfalls in the Evaluation of Uncertainty Estimation Methods for Natural Language Generation [20.726685669562496]
  Hallucinations are a common issue that undermine the reliability of large language models (LLMs)<n>Recent studies have identified a subset of hallucinations, known as confabulations, which arise due to predictive uncertainty of LLMs.<n>To detect confabulations, various methods for estimating predictive uncertainty in natural language generation (NLG) have been developed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T17:54:09Z)
• Hesitation is defeat? Connecting Linguistic and Predictive Uncertainty [2.8186733524862158]
  This paper investigates the relationship between predictive uncertainty and human/linguistic uncertainty, as estimated from free-text reports labelled by rule-based labellers.<n>The results demonstrate good model performance, but also a modest correlation between predictive and linguistic uncertainty, highlighting the challenges in aligning machine uncertainty with human interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T18:34:37Z)
• SConU: Selective Conformal Uncertainty in Large Language Models [59.25881667640868]
  We propose a novel approach termed Selective Conformal Uncertainty (SConU)<n>We develop two conformal p-values that are instrumental in determining whether a given sample deviates from the uncertainty distribution of the calibration set at a specific manageable risk level.<n>Our approach not only facilitates rigorous management of miscoverage rates across both single-domain and interdisciplinary contexts, but also enhances the efficiency of predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T03:01:45Z)
• Benchmarking common uncertainty estimation methods with histopathological images under domain shift and label noise [62.997667081978825]
  In high-risk environments, deep learning models need to be able to judge their uncertainty and reject inputs when there is a significant chance of misclassification. We conduct a rigorous evaluation of the most commonly used uncertainty and robustness methods for the classification of Whole Slide Images. We observe that ensembles of methods generally lead to better uncertainty estimates as well as an increased robustness towards domain shifts and label noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-03T11:34:36Z)
• DEUP: Direct Epistemic Uncertainty Prediction [56.087230230128185]
  Epistemic uncertainty is part of out-of-sample prediction error due to the lack of knowledge of the learner. We propose a principled approach for directly estimating epistemic uncertainty by learning to predict generalization error and subtracting an estimate of aleatoric uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-16T23:50:35Z)
• Temporal Difference Uncertainties as a Signal for Exploration [76.6341354269013]
  An effective approach to exploration in reinforcement learning is to rely on an agent's uncertainty over the optimal policy. In this paper, we highlight that value estimates are easily biased and temporally inconsistent. We propose a novel method for estimating uncertainty over the value function that relies on inducing a distribution over temporal difference errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-05T18:11:22Z)
• Learning to Predict Error for MRI Reconstruction [67.76632988696943]
  We demonstrate that predictive uncertainty estimated by the current methods does not highly correlate with prediction error. We propose a novel method that estimates the target labels and magnitude of the prediction error in two steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-13T15:55:32Z)

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.