REVIEW 2 cited by
On Information-Theoretic Measures of Predictive Uncertainty
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
read the original abstract
Reliable estimation of predictive uncertainty is crucial for machine learning applications, particularly in high-stakes scenarios where hedging against risks is essential. Despite its significance, there is no universal agreement on how to best quantify predictive uncertainty. In this work, we revisit core concepts to propose a framework for information-theoretic measures of predictive uncertainty. Our proposed framework categorizes predictive uncertainty measures according to two factors: (I) The predicting model (II) The approximation of the true predictive distribution. Examining all possible combinations of these two factors, we derive a set of predictive uncertainty measures that includes both known and newly introduced ones. We extensively evaluate these measures across a broad set of tasks, identifying conditions under which certain measures excel. Our findings show the importance of aligning the choice of uncertainty measure with the predicting model on in-distribution (ID) data, the limitations of epistemic uncertainty measures for out-of-distribution (OOD) data, and that the disentanglement between measures varies substantially between ID and OOD data. Together, these insights provide a more comprehensive understanding of predictive uncertainty measures, revealing their implicit assumptions and relationships.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Uncertainty Quantification with Proper Scoring Rules: Adjusting Measures to Prediction Tasks
Uncertainty measures derived from proper scoring rules should be chosen to match the task loss; total uncertainty suits selective prediction, zero-one loss suits active learning.
-
Position: Uncertainty Quantification Needs Reassessment for Large-language Model Agents
A position paper arguing that aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty splits fail for LLM agents and proposing underspecification, interaction, and output-based uncertainty research.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.