Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

A Deeper Look into Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty Disentanglement

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 2204.09308 v1 pith:GJZOKFVP submitted 2022-04-20 cs.LG cs.CV

classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords uncertaintyaleatoricdisentangledepistemicmethodsuncertaintiesproducebest
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Neural networks are ubiquitous in many tasks, but trusting their predictions is an open issue. Uncertainty quantification is required for many applications, and disentangled aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties are best. In this paper, we generalize methods to produce disentangled uncertainties to work with different uncertainty quantification methods, and evaluate their capability to produce disentangled uncertainties. Our results show that: there is an interaction between learning aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which is unexpected and violates assumptions on aleatoric uncertainty, some methods like Flipout produce zero epistemic uncertainty, aleatoric uncertainty is unreliable in the out-of-distribution setting, and Ensembles provide overall the best disentangling quality. We also explore the error produced by the number of samples hyper-parameter in the sampling softmax function, recommending N > 100 samples. We expect that our formulation and results help practitioners and researchers choose uncertainty methods and expand the use of disentangled uncertainties, as well as motivate additional research into this topic.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Image Quality Dependent Degradation for AI Systems

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A normalizing-flow quality monitor that lowers an object detector's confidence threshold on low-quality images raises pedestrian recall by a few points while slightly reducing precision.

  2. CLEAR: Calibrated Learning for Epistemic and Aleatoric Risk

    stat.ML 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    CLEAR jointly calibrates aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty estimates with two parameters and produces narrower calibrated prediction intervals across 17 regression datasets.

  3. Reality Check: A New Evaluation Ecosystem Is Necessary to Understand AI's Real World Effects

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A position paper argues that understanding AI's second-order effects requires moving from static benchmarks to an ecosystem of field testing, red teaming, and contextual evaluation.

Pith tools