arxiv: 2604.08755 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.LG· stat.ML

Recognition: unknown

Accurate and Reliable Uncertainty Estimates for Deterministic Predictions Extensions to Under and Overpredictions

Rileigh Bandy , Enrico Camporeale , Andong Hu , Thomas Berger , Rebecca Morrison

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.LGstat.ML

keywords uncertainty quantificationnon-Gaussian distributionsneural networksprobabilistic forecastingdeterministic predictionsprediction calibrationasymmetric errorsinput-dependent uncertainty

0 comments

The pith

A neural network learns input-dependent asymmetric uncertainty distributions around deterministic predictions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends an existing uncertainty framework to cases where errors vary with the input value and follow non-symmetric, non-Gaussian shapes. It trains a neural network to output the parameters of two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace distributions, using a loss function that trades off the accuracy of the central prediction against the calibration of the uncertainty. This matters for fields that rely on computational models for decisions but cannot afford slow sampling of input parameters. Experiments on synthetic data and real applications show that the estimates capture varying error structures and yield better probabilistic forecasts than prior methods. If correct, deterministic models could be augmented with reliable uncertainty that handles under- and over-prediction differently without extra computational cost at inference time.

Core claim

The authors show that training a neural network to parameterize two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace distributions produces input-dependent uncertainty estimates for deterministic model outputs. A loss function that balances point-prediction accuracy with uncertainty reliability allows the network to learn asymmetric and heavy-tailed error behaviors. Synthetic and real-world tests confirm that the resulting probabilistic forecasts are better calibrated than those from existing approaches while remaining flexible for skewed errors.

What carries the argument

Neural network that outputs parameters of two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace distributions, trained with a loss balancing predictive accuracy and uncertainty calibration.

If this is right

Uncertainty estimates adapt to different input regimes instead of assuming constant error statistics.
Probabilistic forecasts improve for models whose errors are skewed or heavy-tailed.
Deterministic simulators gain reliable uncertainty at inference time without Monte Carlo sampling of inputs.
High-stakes decisions receive better distinction between under-prediction and over-prediction risks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same balancing loss could be applied to other parametric families to test broader flexibility.
Integration with existing deterministic codes would enable uncertainty-aware outputs in simulation-heavy domains.
Performance on very large or streaming datasets would reveal whether the network remains stable without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network can learn the distribution parameters from training data in a way that generalizes to new inputs and produces well-calibrated uncertainty without systematic bias in under- or over-prediction regimes.

What would settle it

On a new test set the predicted probability intervals fail to contain the observed outcomes at the nominal rate, or the learned asymmetry parameters do not match the skewness of the actual prediction errors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08755 by Andong Hu, Enrico Camporeale, Rebecca Morrison, Rileigh Bandy, Thomas Berger.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Numerical results for scenario B: TPG with trig parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Numerical results for scenario C: TPG with combo parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Numerical results for scenario D: AL with linear parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Numerical results for scenario E: AL with trig parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Numerical results for scenario F: AL with combo parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Numerical results for the misspecified distribution, where the true measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Uncertainty estimates for HRRR one-hour ahead temperature forecasts for testing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Minimum, median, and maximum testing observations (blue crosses) compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Computational models support high-stakes decisions across engineering and science, and practitioners increasingly seek probabilistic predictions to quantify uncertainty in such models. Existing approaches generate predictions either by sampling input parameter distributions or by augmenting deterministic outputs with uncertainty representations, including distribution-free and distributional methods. However, sampling-based methods are often computationally prohibitive for real-time applications, and many existing uncertainty representations either ignore input dependence or rely on restrictive Gaussian assumptions that fail to capture asymmetry and heavy-tailed behavior. Therefore, we extend the ACCurate and Reliable Uncertainty Estimate (ACCRUE) framework to learn input-dependent, non-Gaussian uncertainty distributions, specifically two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace forms, using a neural network trained with a loss function that balances predictive accuracy and reliability. Through synthetic and real-world experiments, we show that the proposed approach captures an input-dependent uncertainty structure and improves probabilistic forecasts relative to existing methods, while maintaining flexibility to model skewed and non-Gaussian errors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a clean incremental extension of ACCRUE to two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace uncertainties via a neural net and balancing loss, but the experimental backing looks light on details.

read the letter

The main thing here is extending the ACCRUE framework so deterministic models can attach input-dependent uncertainties that allow for skew and heavier tails. They pick two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace forms, train a neural net to predict their parameters, and use a loss that mixes point prediction error with a reliability term. That setup directly targets the common problem where Gaussian assumptions break down on real data like space weather or engineering outputs, while staying cheaper than full sampling methods. The synthetic tests should isolate whether the new distributions actually capture the asymmetry, and the real-world cases give a sense of practical payoff. That part is straightforward and addresses a real limitation in existing wrappers. The soft spots sit in the validation. The abstract says the approach improves probabilistic forecasts and captures input-dependent structure, but without the actual metrics, baseline tables, error bars, or rules for how they split data, it's difficult to tell how large or robust the gains are. The balancing hyperparameter in the loss could also hide sensitivity; if it needs heavy tuning per dataset, the method loses some of its advertised ease. Generalization beyond the training distribution remains the usual empirical question rather than a solved one. This paper is aimed at people who already run deterministic simulators and want a lightweight way to add better-calibrated uncertainty without switching to full Bayesian or ensemble approaches. A reader working on similar UQ wrappers would pick up the specific distribution choices and loss construction. It deserves a serious referee because the motivation is clear, the extension is concrete, and the problem matters, even if the results section will need more quantitative scrutiny and sensitivity checks before publication.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the ACCRUE framework to produce input-dependent, non-Gaussian uncertainty estimates for deterministic predictions. It trains a neural network to parameterize two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace distributions using a custom loss that balances predictive accuracy against reliability, and reports that synthetic and real-world experiments show capture of input-dependent structure together with improved probabilistic forecasts relative to existing methods.

Significance. If the empirical results hold under proper validation, the work supplies a computationally lightweight alternative to sampling-based uncertainty quantification while relaxing both the Gaussian assumption and the input-independence restriction common in prior distributional methods. This would be useful in engineering and scientific settings where asymmetric or heavy-tailed errors are prevalent and real-time decisions are required.

major comments (2)

[Experiments section] The central empirical claim (improved probabilistic forecasts) rests on the generalization and calibration properties of the trained network; the weakest assumption identified is that the balancing loss reliably produces well-calibrated input-dependent parameters without systematic bias in under- or over-prediction regimes. Without explicit reporting of calibration diagnostics (e.g., coverage rates stratified by input region or PIT histograms) or out-of-distribution tests, this assumption remains unverified.
[Methods / Loss formulation] The loss function is described as balancing accuracy and reliability, yet no derivation or sensitivity analysis is supplied for the balancing hyperparameter; if this hyperparameter must be tuned per dataset, the method is no longer parameter-free in the sense claimed for the original ACCRUE framework.

minor comments (3)

[Methods] Notation for the two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace parameters should be introduced with explicit equations rather than prose descriptions only.
[Figures] Figure captions should state the exact metrics plotted (e.g., CRPS, NLL, or interval coverage) and the baselines used for comparison.
[Abstract] The abstract mentions 'real-world experiments' but does not name the datasets or application domains; this information belongs in the abstract or a dedicated data section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our extension of the ACCRUE framework. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional diagnostics and analysis as outlined.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Experiments section] The central empirical claim (improved probabilistic forecasts) rests on the generalization and calibration properties of the trained network; the weakest assumption identified is that the balancing loss reliably produces well-calibrated input-dependent parameters without systematic bias in under- or over-prediction regimes. Without explicit reporting of calibration diagnostics (e.g., coverage rates stratified by input region or PIT histograms) or out-of-distribution tests, this assumption remains unverified.

Authors: We agree that the current empirical section would benefit from stronger calibration evidence. In the revised manuscript we will add PIT histograms for the synthetic and real-world experiments, coverage rates stratified by input regions (where input structure permits), and explicit out-of-distribution tests on held-out data. These additions will directly verify the absence of systematic bias in under- and over-prediction regimes and strengthen support for the central claim. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods / Loss formulation] The loss function is described as balancing accuracy and reliability, yet no derivation or sensitivity analysis is supplied for the balancing hyperparameter; if this hyperparameter must be tuned per dataset, the method is no longer parameter-free in the sense claimed for the original ACCRUE framework.

Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript lacks both a derivation of the balancing term and a sensitivity study. In the revision we will supply a short derivation of the composite loss and include a sensitivity analysis across the reported datasets, demonstrating that a single fixed value suffices for the experiments presented. Should the analysis reveal dataset-specific tuning is required, we will revise the parameter-free claim accordingly while retaining the method's practical advantages. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical extension of the ACCRUE framework via a neural network trained on a custom balancing loss to produce input-dependent two-piece Gaussian and asymmetric Laplace uncertainty distributions. All load-bearing claims (capture of input-dependent structure, improved probabilistic forecasts) rest on synthetic and real-world experiments rather than any closed-form derivation, uniqueness theorem, or self-referential equation. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described method; the training procedure is standard supervised learning and does not reduce the target result to its inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the neural network's capacity to learn distribution parameters from data and on the effectiveness of the balancing loss function. No new physical entities or explicit mathematical axioms beyond standard supervised learning assumptions are stated in the abstract.

free parameters (2)

Neural network weights and biases
Fitted during training to predict the parameters of the uncertainty distributions.
Loss balancing hyperparameter
Controls the trade-off between predictive accuracy and uncertainty reliability; its value is chosen or optimized during training.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5473 in / 1274 out tokens · 65229 ms · 2026-05-10T16:38:41.358455+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

B ANDY , rbandy/ACCRUE for skewed: ACCRUE for skewed uncertainty distributions , Mar

R. B ANDY , rbandy/ACCRUE for skewed: ACCRUE for skewed uncertainty distributions , Mar. 2026, https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19343211

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19343211 2026
[2]

C AMPOREALE AND A

E. C AMPOREALE AND A. C AR `E, ACCRUE: Accurate and reliable uncertainty estimate in deterministic models, International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification, 11 (2021)

2021
[3]

C AMPOREALE , X

E. C AMPOREALE , X. C HU, O. A GAPITOV , AND J. B ORTNIK , On the generation of probabilistic forecasts from deterministic models, Space Weather, 17 (2019), pp. 455–475

2019
[4]

N. K. C HADA , A. J ASRA , K. J. L AW, AND S. S. S INGH , Bayesian deep learning with multilevel trace-class neural networks, SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 7 (2025), pp. 1210–1240

2025
[5]

EBERHARD AND C

P. EBERHARD AND C. B ISCHOF , Automatic differentiation of numerical integration algorithms, Mathematics of Computation, 68 (1999), pp. 717–731

1999
[6]

GNEITING AND T

T. GNEITING AND T. L. T HORARINSDOTTIR , Predicting inflation: Professional experts versus no-change forecasts, arXiv preprint arXiv:1010.2318, (2010)

work page arXiv 2010
[7]

M. A. G RUET , M. C HANDORKAR , A. S ICARD , AND E. C AMPOREALE , Multiple-hour-ahead forecast of the Dst index using a combination of long short-term memory neural network and gaussian process, Space Weather, 16 (2018), pp. 1882–1896

2018
[8]

H ERSBACH , Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems, Weather and Forecasting, 15 (2000), pp

H. H ERSBACH , Decomposition of the continuous ranked probability score for ensemble prediction systems, Weather and Forecasting, 15 (2000), pp. 559–570

2000
[9]

A. H U, E. C AMPOREALE , AND B. S WIGER , Multi-hour-ahead Dst index prediction using multi-fidelity boosted neural networks, Space Weather, 21 (2023), p. e2022SW003286

2023
[10]

I SSAN , P

O. I SSAN , P. RILEY, E. C AMPOREALE , AND B. K RAMER , Bayesian inference and global sensitivity analysis for ambient solar wind prediction, Space Weather, 21 (2023), p. e2023SW003555

2023
[11]

E. P. J AMES , C. R. A LEXANDER , D. C. D OWELL , S. S. W EYGANDT , S. G. B ENJAMIN , G. S. M ANIKIN , J. M. BROWN , J. B. O LSON , M. H U, T. G. S MIRNOVA , ET AL ., The high-resolution rapid refresh (hrrr): an hourly updating convection-allowing forecast model. part ii: Forecast performance, Weather and Forecasting, 37 (2022), pp. 1397–1417

2022
[12]

J ORDAN , F

A. J ORDAN , F. K R ¨UGER , AND S. L ERCH , Evaluating probabilistic forecasts with scoring rules, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04743, (2017)

work page arXiv 2017
[13]

K OTU AND B

V. K OTU AND B. D ESHPANDE , Data Science: Concepts and Practice, Morgan Kaufmann, 2018

2018
[14]

Q. L I, J. L IN, AND J. S. R ACINE , Optimal bandwidth selection for nonparametric conditional distribution and quantile functions, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 31 (2013), pp. 57–65

2013
[15]

L UENGO , L

D. L UENGO , L. M ARTINO , M. B UGALLO , V. E LVIRA , AND S. S ¨ARKK ¨A, A survey of Monte Carlo methods for parameter estimation , European Association for Signal Processing Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2020 (2020), pp. 1–62

2020
[16]

M ARTIN -U RCELAY, C

B. M ARTIN -U RCELAY, C. J. R OZELL , AND M. R. B LOCH , Online machine teaching under learner uncertainty: Gradient descent learners of a quadratic loss , SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 7 (2025), pp. 884–905

2025
[17]

R. E. M ORRISON , T. A. O LIVER , AND R. D. M OSER , Representing model inadequacy: A stochastic operator approach, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 6 (2018), pp. 457–496. ACCRUE FOR UNDER AND OVERPREDICTIONS 19

2018
[18]

PORTONE AND R

T. PORTONE AND R. D. M OSER , Bayesian inference of an uncertain generalized diffusion operator, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 10 (2022), pp. 151–178

2022
[19]

S AGI AND L

O. S AGI AND L. R OKACH , Ensemble learning: A survey, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge discovery, 8 (2018), p. e1249

2018
[20]

S HAFER AND V

G. S HAFER AND V. VOVK, A tutorial on conformal prediction., Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9 (2008)

2008
[21]

S MITH , N

A. S MITH , N. L OTT, AND R. V OSE, The integrated surface database: Recent developments and partnerships , Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92 (2011), pp. 704–708

2011
[22]

TAQUET , V

V. TAQUET , V. B LOT, T. M ORZADEC , L. L ACOMBE , AND N. B RUNEL , Mapie: an open-source library for distribution-free uncertainty quantification, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12274, (2022)

work page arXiv 2022
[23]

VOVK , A

V. VOVK , A. G AMMERMAN , AND G. S HAFER , Algorithmic learning in a random world, vol. 29, Springer, 2005

2005
[24]

W ALZ , A

E.-M. W ALZ , A. H ENZI , J. Z IEGEL , AND T. GNEITING , Easy uncertainty quantification (EasyUQ): Generating predictive distributions from single-valued model output, SIAM Review, 66 (2024), pp. 91–122

2024
[25]

E. V. WALZ ET AL ., Easyuq: Easy-to-use uncertainty quantification. https://github.com/evwalz/easyuq, 2024. GitHub repository

2024
[26]

W. XIE, C. L I, Y. W U, AND P. ZHANG , A nonparametric bayesian framework for uncertainty quantification in stochastic simulation, SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 9 (2021), pp. 1527–1552

2021