Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Interpretable Uncertainty Quantification in AI for HEP

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2208.03284 v3 pith:FF7FZHWM submitted 2022-08-05 hep-ex cs.LGhep-phstat.ML

classification hep-excs.LGhep-phstat.ML
keywords methodsuncertaintyquantificationareasdiscussinterpretablequestiontask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Estimating uncertainty is at the core of performing scientific measurements in HEP: a measurement is not useful without an estimate of its uncertainty. The goal of uncertainty quantification (UQ) is inextricably linked to the question, "how do we physically and statistically interpret these uncertainties?" The answer to this question depends not only on the computational task we aim to undertake, but also on the methods we use for that task. For artificial intelligence (AI) applications in HEP, there are several areas where interpretable methods for UQ are essential, including inference, simulation, and control/decision-making. There exist some methods for each of these areas, but they have not yet been demonstrated to be as trustworthy as more traditional approaches currently employed in physics (e.g., non-AI frequentist and Bayesian methods). Shedding light on the questions above requires additional understanding of the interplay of AI systems and uncertainty quantification. We briefly discuss the existing methods in each area and relate them to tasks across HEP. We then discuss recommendations for avenues to pursue to develop the necessary techniques for reliable widespread usage of AI with UQ over the next decade.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Higgs Signal Strength Estimation with Machine Learning under Systematic Uncertainties

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SAGE, a dual-branch GNN trained under nuisance fluctuations, estimates the Higgs signal strength with near-nominal coverage (0.662-0.683) but wider intervals than the top FAIR-HUC leaderboard methods.

  2. Uncertainty in Physics and AI: Taxonomy, Quantification, and Validation

    stat.ML 2026-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A unified taxonomy of uncertainty in ML for physics is introduced together with validation tools such as coverage, calibration, and proper scoring rules, illustrated on regression and classification tasks.

  3. Uncertainty in Physics and AI: Taxonomy, Quantification, and Validation

    stat.ML 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A community-review taxonomy of uncertainty in physics-ML, plus validation diagnostics and toy experiments showing that no tested UQ method keeps nominal coverage outside the training domain.

Pith tools