REVIEW 4 cited by
Sources of Uncertainty in Supervised Machine Learning -- A Statisticians' View
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
Sources of Uncertainty in Supervised Machine Learning -- A Statisticians' View
read the original abstract
Supervised machine learning and predictive models have achieved an impressive standard today, enabling us to answer questions that were inconceivable a few years ago. Besides these successes, it becomes clear, that beyond pure prediction, which is the primary strength of most supervised machine learning algorithms, the quantification of uncertainty is relevant and necessary as well. However, before quantification is possible, types and sources of uncertainty need to be defined precisely. While first concepts and ideas in this direction have emerged in recent years, this paper adopts a conceptual, basic science perspective and examines possible sources of uncertainty. By adopting the viewpoint of a statistician, we discuss the concepts of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which are more commonly associated with machine learning. The paper aims to formalize the two types of uncertainty and demonstrates that sources of uncertainty are miscellaneous and can not always be decomposed into aleatoric and epistemic. Drawing parallels between statistical concepts and uncertainty in machine learning, we emphasise the role of data and their influence on uncertainty.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Epistemic Uncertainty Is Not the Reducible Kind
The mutual-information measure of epistemic uncertainty is not reducible by additional data, requiring a split into aleatoric, sample-reducible epistemic, and mechanism-reducible epistemic uncertainty.
-
From Ground Truth to Measurement: A Statistical Framework for Human Labeling
A statistical framework decomposes human annotation outcomes into four interpretable variation sources and extends classical measurement-error models to handle both shared and individualized notions of truth.
-
What Uncertainties Do We Need for Dynamical Systems?
A conceptual discussion clarifying the roles of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty when modeling dynamical systems across ML tasks.
-
Uncertainty Representation in a SOTIF-Related Use Case with Dempster-Shafer Theory for LiDAR Sensor-Based Object Detection
Applies Dempster-Shafer Theory with conditional BPAs and Yager's combination rule, then variance-based sensitivity analysis, to represent and rank uncertainties in LiDAR detection for a SOTIF scenario.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.