Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Uncertainty Quantification in Machine Learning for Biosignal Applications -- A Review

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 2312.09454 v2 pith:4CRCHVL3 submitted 2023-11-15 eess.SP cs.HCcs.LG

classification eess.SPcs.HCcs.LG
keywords uncertaintylearningmachinequantificationapplicationsbiosignaldomaingood
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) has gained traction in an attempt to improve the interpretability and robustness of machine learning predictions. Specifically (medical) biosignals such as electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), electrooculography (EOG), and electromyography (EMG) could benefit from good UQ, since these suffer from a poor signal-to-noise ratio, and good human interpretability is pivotal for medical applications. In this paper, we review the state of the art of applying Uncertainty Quantification to Machine Learning tasks in the biosignal domain. We present various methods, shortcomings, uncertainty measures and theoretical frameworks that currently exist in this application domain. We address misconceptions in the field, provide recommendations for future work, and discuss gaps in the literature in relation to diagnostic implementations as well as control for prostheses or brain-computer interfaces. Overall it can be concluded that promising UQ methods are available, but that research is needed on how people and systems may interact with an uncertainty-model in a (clinical) environment

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Uncertainty Quantification for Motor Imagery BCI -- Machine Learning vs. Deep Learning

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Classical BCI classifiers (CSP-LDA, MDRM) give better calibrated uncertainty than deep learning, which tends to be overconfident, but deep learning remains more accurate.

Pith tools