Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

On the Need to Align Intent and Implementation in Uncertainty Quantification for Machine Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A paper argues that most ML uncertainty estimates in science are used for claims they were never designed to support, a failure it names 'construct drift'.

desk verdict A sincere organizational framework for UQ alignment; the checklist is useful, but the core diagnostic criterion needs a sharper definition before it becomes a standard. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03037 v1 pith:RC54I6U3 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.LG stat.MEstat.ML

Shubhendu Trivedi , Brian D. Nord This is my paper
classification cs.LGstat.MEstat.ML
keywords constructdriftepistemicwarrantuncertaintyquantificationsimulation-basedinferencepredictionintervalstrustworthyAIBayesianvsfrequentistscientificmachinelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This position paper argues that uncertainty estimates in machine learning, especially in scientific applications such as simulation-based inference, are frequently computed for one object and then used to support conclusions about another. It names this failure 'construct drift' and traces it to a missing epistemic contract: reported uncertainty has no defensible link among the estimation target, the warrant that justifies it, and the construct used to represent it. The paper builds a taxonomy of six estimation targets and four uncertainty-construct families, pairs them by warrant, and offers three axes for testing trustworthiness: formal guarantees, empirical reliability, and model correspondence. If the diagnosis holds, a large share of published uncertainty quantification in scientific ML is not valid for the claims it is used to support, and explicit intent-implementation alignment becomes a necessary standard.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the epistemic contract: a three-part alignment among the estimation target (prediction, parameter inference, indirect inference, simulator-parameter inference, unique-event forecast), the warrant that legitimizes uncertainty for that target, and the uncertainty construct (frequentist, Bayesian, fiducial, logical) that expresses it. The paper also supplies a practical testing apparatus: three axes of trustworthiness (formal guarantees, empirical reliability, model correspondence) and a scientific simulation-based inference checklist (theory check, forward checks, inverse checks, degeneracy mapping, global structure comprehension) that operationalize the contract.

What would settle it

Run the paper's own diagnostics on a set of method-first simulation-based inference papers: check whether each reported posterior passes simulation-based calibration, a posterior predictive check, and a sensitivity analysis to simulator perturbation; if most reported uncertainties pass all three, the claim that construct drift is widespread collapses, while if few pass, the diagnosis is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the validity of an uncertainty estimate is not a property of the method alone but of the method paired with its inferential target and context. A variance across deep-ensemble members is a dispersion of model outputs, not by itself a measure of epistemic ignorance, and a prediction interval is a statement about future observables, not about latent physical parameters. When such quantities are invoked for the other role, the paper says the estimate suffers construct drift and trans-semantic transfer: the surface form of a guarantee is preserved while its justificatory grounding is lost. The remedy is an explicit epistemic contract that declares the estimation target, the warrant (long-run coverage, belief coherence, error control, or evidential support), and the construct that carries that warrant, then tests the result along formal, empirical, and domain-correspondence axes.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that estimation targets are separable enough that each has a single, defensible uncertainty construct, so that reusing a construct across targets can be called drift; if hybrid targets or constructs that legitimately transfer across semantics are common, the diagnosis loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every uncertainty report should declare its inference chain: target, decision goal, construct, and warrant, so that readers can see what the number is allowed to mean.
  • Prediction intervals, credible regions, and ensemble variances are not interchangeable; using one in another's role voids the guarantee it carries.
  • Simulation-based inference pipelines should run both forward checks (posterior predictive) and inverse checks (simulation-based calibration), and should test sensitivity to simulator perturbations.
  • Evaluation should be engineered to the decision, for example stratified calibration when false-negative rates or phase boundaries are what matter.
  • Borrowed terms such as 'epistemic', 'systematic', and 'confidence' need to be defined with respect to both their statistical and scientific context.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This framework points to a concrete governance tool the paper leaves implicit: an 'uncertainty card' or construct declaration attached to published results, making target-warrant alignment auditable.
  • Because Table 1 marks simulator-parameter inference under frequentist and fiducial warrants as under-explored, a natural next step is developing and calibrating uncertainty constructs for neural posterior and ratio estimators under model misspecification, not just under simulation.
  • The three-axes checklist is also a lens for method comparison: two methods with equal coverage could be ranked by model correspondence, which current benchmark culture largely ignores.
  • If construct drift is as widespread as the paper asserts, one testable consequence is that re-analyzing published simulation-based inference results with explicit target-construct alignment will change some scientific conclusions; this could be checked on a corpus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper argues that uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning suffers from 'construct drift': statistical quantities are computed for one object (e.g., a prediction interval) and then invoked to support conclusions about another (e.g., latent physical parameters), without a defensible epistemic link. The paper proposes a taxonomy of six estimation targets (Section 2), four families of uncertainty constructs (Section 3), a mapping between them in Table 2, and three 'axes of trustworthiness' (formal guarantees, empirical reliability, model correspondence) in Section 5. Section 6 presents illustrative cases of misalignment, and Section 7 offers practical recommendations including declaring the inference chain, forward and inverse checks, and simulator-based stress tests. The contribution is explicitly organizational and conceptual rather than methodological.

Significance. If made precise, the framework could give scientific ML researchers a useful vocabulary for diagnosing when an uncertainty estimate does not support the claim it is used for. The paper usefully synthesizes ideas from statistics, philosophy of probability, and current SBI practice, and its practical recommendations—especially forward and inverse validation, simulator stress tests, and explicit inference-chain declarations—are valuable and actionable. The paper also correctly identifies real dangers in trans-semantic transfers, such as using prediction intervals as parameter constraints. However, the absence of an operational criterion for 'epistemic justification' currently limits the framework's force, and several empirical claims about prevalence are not supported. The central diagnosis is plausible and worth publishing, but the manuscript needs substantial revision to make the diagnostic criterion precise and to qualify or evidence its stronger assertions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 1 and 5] The paper's central concept, 'epistemic justification', is never defined operationally. Section 1 calls it 'a defensible link' between the reported quantity and the claim it supports, but no criterion is given for when such a link is defensible. Section 5 introduces the three axes as 'necessary (if not sufficient)' for trustworthy UQ, yet Section 6 repeatedly infers construct drift from a violated axis (e.g., 'Variance versus uncertainty (violates Axes 1 & 2)'). Failing a non-sufficient check is not evidence of invalidity. The authors need to provide an operational criterion—for instance, a decision-theoretic condition, a coherence condition, or a formal link between the estimand and the reported quantity—so that 'construct drift' can be applied and tested.
  2. [Section 6, 'Variance versus uncertainty'] The flagship example of deep-ensemble variance as epistemic uncertainty is not decisive as stated. The authors claim that ensemble variance 'carries no formal calibration guarantee and is rarely tested for frequentist coverage or Bayesian coherence' and therefore lacks epistemic justification. This conflates absence of a particular guarantee with absence of justification. Under a Bayesian model-averaging interpretation, an ensemble can approximate a posterior over weights, and the variance across ensemble members can represent reducible epistemic uncertainty without needing to be a calibrated interval. The authors should either acknowledge this legitimate reading and restrict their claim to settings where no such interpretation holds, or supply a criterion that distinguishes legitimate Bayesian use from the alleged drift.
  3. [Section 6, 'Most SBI papers do not check this'] The paper states that 'Most SBI papers do not check this' regarding posterior predictive checks and sensitivity to simulator parameters. This is an empirical prevalence claim, but no survey, corpus analysis, or quantitative evidence is provided. Because the paper's motivation rests on the failure mode being widespread, this assertion is load-bearing. The authors should either provide systematic evidence (e.g., an analysis of a sample of SBI publications) or explicitly characterize the claim as anecdotal and temper its role in the argument.
  4. [Section 2 and Table 2] The taxonomy assumes that estimation targets form a small, separable set and that each target has one defensible construct pairing, as shown in Table 2. Many scientific workflows involve hybrid targets or constructs that are legitimately transferred across semantic levels—for example, using a posterior predictive distribution for experimental design, or using a prediction interval as an approximate constraint on a parameter in an embedded model. The paper does not discuss how to distinguish such legitimate transfers from construct drift. Without a treatment of hybrid cases, Table 2's 'defensible' pairings are asserted rather than derived, and the diagnostic loses its force in precisely the ambiguous cases where it is most needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract contains the typo 'a illustrative suite'; Section 2, item 6 reads 'Simulation–based inference: : Likelihood-Free Learning' with a double colon. These should be corrected.
  2. [References] References [23] and [45] are the same paper (Talts et al., 'Validating Bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration') cited twice with different numbers; the duplicate should be removed or unified.
  3. [Section 7] The phrase 'epistemic hygiene--–' in the final paragraph contains stray hyphens and dashes; it should read 'epistemic hygiene'.
  4. [Section 6, 'Variance versus uncertainty'] The claim that deep ensembles are 'often used' to report variance as uncertainty in physics is not accompanied by a specific citation. Adding concrete references or explicitly labeling the statement as an illustrative pattern would strengthen the discussion.
  5. [Table 1] The entry characterizing frequentist SBI as 'under-explored' is debatable, since there is a body of work on frequentist coverage properties of simulation-based estimators, calibrated ABC, and confidence distributions. The table should either cite that literature or qualify the entry as an assessment of principled frequentist constructs specifically, not of all frequentist work in SBI.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly organizational position piece; its core taxonomy is stipulated, not derived, and the two self-citations are illustrative only.

full rationale

The paper performs no derivations, fits no parameters, and makes no quantitative predictions; its central notion of construct drift is introduced by stipulative definition ('a variance over model outputs is treated as a stand-in for model ignorance... We call this phenomenon construct drift') rather than by a derivation from inputs that would reduce to itself. Table 2 pairings are explicitly illustrative ('The figure is not exhaustive, but it signals which kinds of construct–target pairings are defensible'), so they are not presented as first-principles results. Self-citations [43,44] appear once as examples of conformal prediction losing subgroup explainability and carry no load-bearing justificatory weight for the framework. The unsupported empirical claim that 'Most SBI papers do not check this' is a correctness and evidence concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no step in the paper's argument reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or physical entities. Its axioms are the key domain assumptions: that estimation targets and uncertainty constructs form a discrete taxonomy with unique pairings, and that the three axes are necessary for trustworthiness.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The taxonomy of estimation targets (estimation, prediction, inference, predictive inference, indirect inference, SBI) is exhaustive for scientific ML workflows.
    Introduced in Section 2 as a list of 'six canonical estimation targets' without a completeness argument.
  • domain assumption Each uncertainty construct family carries a single, non-transferable epistemic warrant; using it for another target is invalid.
    Section 3 and Table 2 assert this pairing logic; the paper does not consider hybrid constructs such as robust Bayes or decision-theoretic UQ.
  • domain assumption The three trustworthiness axes (formal guarantees, empirical reliability, model correspondence) are necessary conditions for trustworthy UQ.
    Section 5 states these axes as the core criteria; this is a normative assertion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Need to Align Intent and Implementation in Uncertainty Quantification for Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RC54I6U3

@misc{pith2026250603037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Need to Align Intent and Implementation in Uncertainty Quantification for Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RC54I6U3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03037}
}
read the original abstract

Quantifying uncertainties for machine learning (ML) models is a foundational challenge in modern data analysis. This challenge is compounded by at least two key aspects of the field: (a) inconsistent terminology surrounding uncertainty and estimation across disciplines, and (b) the varying technical requirements for establishing trustworthy uncertainties in diverse problem contexts. In this position paper, we aim to clarify the depth of these challenges by identifying these inconsistencies and articulating how different contexts impose distinct epistemic demands. We examine the current landscape of estimation targets (e.g., prediction, inference, simulation-based inference), uncertainty constructs (e.g., frequentist, Bayesian, fiducial), and the approaches used to map between them. Drawing on the literature, we highlight and explain examples of problematic mappings. To help address these issues, we advocate for standards that promote alignment between the \textit{intent} and \textit{implementation} of uncertainty quantification (UQ) approaches. We discuss several axes of trustworthiness that are necessary (if not sufficient) for reliable UQ in ML models, and show how these axes can inform the design and evaluation of uncertainty-aware ML systems. Our practical recommendations focus on scientific ML, offering illustrative cases and use scenarios, particularly in the context of simulation-based inference (SBI).

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wiley Publications in Statistics, 1954

    Leonard Savage.The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley Publications in Statistics, 1954

    work page 1954

  2. [2]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    José M Bernardo and Adrian FM Smith.Bayesian theory, volume 405. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation

    Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E Raftery. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American statistical Association, 102(477):359–378, 2007

    2007

  4. [4]

    Rajendra Acharya, Vladimir Makarenkov, and Saeid Nahavandi

    Moloud Abdar, Farhad Pourpanah, Sadiq Hussain, Dana Rezazadegan, Li Liu, Mohammad Ghavamzadeh, Paul Fieguth, Xiaochun Cao, Abbas Khosravi, U. Rajendra Acharya, Vladimir Makarenkov, and Saeid Nahavandi. A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges.Information Fusion, 76:243–297, December 2021. ISSN 1566-2...

    doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 2021

  5. [5]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles, 2017

    Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1612.01474

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Weight uncertainty in neural networks, 2015

    Charles Blundell, Julien Cornebise, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. Weight uncertainty in neural networks, 2015. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1505.05424

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Springer, 2005

    Vladimir V ovk, Alexander Gammerman, and Glenn Shafer.Algorithmic learning in a random world, volume 29. Springer, 2005

    2005

  8. [8]

    The frontier of simulation-based inference

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Science and statistics.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71 (356):791–799, 1976

    George EP Box. Science and statistics.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71 (356):791–799, 1976

    1976

  2. [10]

    Oberkampf and Christopher J

    William L. Oberkampf and Christopher J. Roy.Verification and Validation in Scientific Comput- ing. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Cambridge university press, 2014

    Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Shai Ben-David.Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Statistical inference.Australia: Duxbury/Thomson Learning, 2002

    Casella G Berger RL. Statistical inference.Australia: Duxbury/Thomson Learning, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn london, 2013

    Andrew Gelman, John B Carlin, Hal S Stern, David B Dunson, Aki Vehtari, and Donald B Rubin. Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn london, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Conformalized quantile regression

    Yaniv Romano, Evan Patterson, and Emmanuel Candes. Conformalized quantile regression. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, ed- itors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. UR...

    2019

  7. [15]

    The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 10(2):455–482, 2021

    Rina Foygel Barber, Emmanuel J Candes, Aaditya Ramdas, and Ryan J Tibshirani. The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference.Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, 10(2):455–482, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Indirect inference.Journal of applied econometrics, 8(S1):S85–S118, 1993

    Christian Gourieroux, Alain Monfort, and Eric Renault. Indirect inference.Journal of applied econometrics, 8(S1):S85–S118, 1993

    1993

  9. [17]

    Springer, 1977

    John Wilder Tukey et al.Exploratory data analysis, volume 2. Springer, 1977

    1977

  10. [18]

    Springer, 2005

    Olav Kallenberg et al.Probabilistic symmetries and invariance principles, volume 9. Springer, 2005. 10

    2005

  11. [19]

    Fastϵ -free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation

    George Papamakarios and Iain Murray. Fastϵ -free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation. In D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 29. Curran Associates, ...

    2016

  12. [20]

    Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows

    George Papamakarios, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows. In Kamalika Chaudhuri and Masashi Sugiyama, editors,Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artifi- cial Intellige...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators, 2020

    Joeri Hermans, V olodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized approximate ratio estimators, 2020. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1903.04057

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Transmission of Justification and Warrant

    Luca Moretti and Tommaso Piazza. Transmission of Justification and Warrant. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2023 edition, 2023

    2023

  15. [24]

    Cambridge University Press, 2006

    Ian Hacking.The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  16. [25]

    Outline of a theory of statistical estimation based on the classical theory of probability.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

    Jerzy Neyman. Outline of a theory of statistical estimation based on the classical theory of probability.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 236(767):333–380, 1937

    1937

  17. [26]

    University of Chicago Press, 1996

    Deborah G Mayo.Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press, 1996

    1996

  18. [27]

    David Roxbee Cox.Planning of experiments.Wiley, 1958

    1958

  19. [28]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2017

    Bruno De Finetti.Theory of probability: A critical introductory treatment. John Wiley & Sons, 2017

    2017

  20. [29]

    OUP Oxford, 2004

    Luc Bovens and Stephan Hartmann.Bayesian epistemology. OUP Oxford, 2004

    2004

  21. [30]

    On fiducial inference.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(3):661–676, 1961

    Donald AS Fraser. On fiducial inference.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(3):661–676, 1961

    1961

  22. [31]

    Fiducial inference, then and now

    Philip Dawid. Fiducial inference, then and now. InHandbook of Bayesian, Fiducial, and Frequentist Inference, pages 83–105. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024

    2024

  23. [32]

    Generalized fiducial inference: A review and new results.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(515):1346–1361, 2016

    Jan Hannig, Hari Iyer, Randy CS Lai, and Thomas CM Lee. Generalized fiducial inference: A review and new results.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(515):1346–1361, 2016

    2016

  24. [33]

    Courier Corporation, 2013

    John Maynard Keynes.A treatise on probability. Courier Corporation, 2013

    2013

  25. [34]

    Citeseer, 1962

    Rudolf Carnap.Logical foundations of probability, volume 2. Citeseer, 1962

    1962

  26. [35]

    Cambridge university press, 2003

    Edwin T Jaynes.Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge university press, 2003

    2003

  27. [36]

    Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics.Appl

    William L Oberkampf, Timothy G Trucano, and Charles Hirsch. Verification, validation, and predictive capability in computational engineering and physics.Appl. Mech. Rev., 57(5): 345–384, 2004

    2004

  28. [37]

    Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods.Machine learning, 110(3):457–506, 2021

    Eyke Hüllermeier and Willem Waegeman. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods.Machine learning, 110(3):457–506, 2021. 11

    2021

  29. [38]

    Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter?Structural safety, 31(2):105–112, 2009

    Armen Der Kiureghian and Ove Ditlevsen. Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter?Structural safety, 31(2):105–112, 2009

    2009

  30. [39]

    Explainable uncertainty quantifications for deep learning-based molecular property prediction.Journal of Cheminformatics, 15(1):13, 2023

    Chu-I Yang and Yi-Pei Li. Explainable uncertainty quantifications for deep learning-based molecular property prediction.Journal of Cheminformatics, 15(1):13, 2023

    2023

  31. [40]

    Bayesian astrostatistics: a backward look to the future

    Thomas J Loredo. Bayesian astrostatistics: a backward look to the future. InAstrostatistical challenges for the new astronomy, pages 15–40. Springer, 2012

    2012

  32. [41]

    Towards reliable simulation-based inference with balanced neural ratio estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20025–20037, 2022

    Arnaud Delaunoy, Joeri Hermans, François Rozet, Antoine Wehenkel, and Gilles Louppe. Towards reliable simulation-based inference with balanced neural ratio estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:20025–20037, 2022

    2022

  33. [42]

    Bayes and frequentism: a particle physicist’s perspective.Contemporary Physics, 54(1):1–16, February 2013

    Louis Lyons. Bayes and frequentism: a particle physicist’s perspective.Contemporary Physics, 54(1):1–16, February 2013. ISSN 1366-5812. doi: 10.1080/00107514.2012.756312. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2012.756312

    2013

  34. [43]

    Conformal prediction with temporal quantile adjustments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:31017–31030, 2022

    Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. Conformal prediction with temporal quantile adjustments.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:31017–31030, 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Conformal prediction intervals with temporal dependence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12940, 2022

    Zhen Lin, Shubhendu Trivedi, and Jimeng Sun. Conformal prediction intervals with temporal dependence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12940, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Validating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration, 2020

    Sean Talts, Michael Betancourt, Daniel Simpson, Aki Vehtari, and Andrew Gelman. Validating bayesian inference algorithms with simulation-based calibration, 2020. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1804.06788

    2020 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician.The Annals of Statistics, pages 1151–1172, 1984

    Donald B Rubin. Bayesianly justifiable and relevant frequency calculations for the applied statistician.The Annals of Statistics, pages 1151–1172, 1984

    1984

  38. [47]

    Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies.Statistica sinica, pages 733–760, 1996

    Andrew Gelman, Xiao-Li Meng, and Hal Stern. Posterior predictive assessment of model fitness via realized discrepancies.Statistica sinica, pages 733–760, 1996

    1996

  39. [48]

    Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning

    Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil and Rich Caruana. Predicting good probabilities with supervised learning. InProceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, pages 625–632, 2005

    2005

  40. [49]

    The comparison and evaluation of forecasters

    Morris H DeGroot and Stephen E Fienberg. The comparison and evaluation of forecasters. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 32(1-2):12–22, 1983

    1983

  41. [50]

    Cherian, and Emmanuel J

    Isaac Gibbs, John J. Cherian, and Emmanuel J. Candès. Conformal prediction with conditional guarantees, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12616

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Uncertainty cards,

    Biao Wu, Haihui Zhang, Yuanxun Zhou, Lanting Zhang, and Hong Wang. Uncertainty quantification of phase boundary in a composition-phase map via bayesian strategies.Phys. Rev. Mater., 7:025201, Feb 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.7.025201. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.11...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.