Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty with Random Forests

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 2001.00893 v1 pith:RWNBK7YH submitted 2020-01-03 cs.LG stat.ML

classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords forestslearningrandomuncertaintyaleatoricepistemicbeenincreasing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Due to the steadily increasing relevance of machine learning for practical applications, many of which are coming with safety requirements, the notion of uncertainty has received increasing attention in machine learning research in the last couple of years. In particular, the idea of distinguishing between two important types of uncertainty, often refereed to as aleatoric and epistemic, has recently been studied in the setting of supervised learning. In this paper, we propose to quantify these uncertainties with random forests. More specifically, we show how two general approaches for measuring the learner's aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in a prediction can be instantiated with decision trees and random forests as learning algorithms in a classification setting. In this regard, we also compare random forests with deep neural networks, which have been used for a similar purpose.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Credal Concept Bottleneck Models for Epistemic-Aleatoric Uncertainty Decomposition

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    CREDENCE decomposes concept uncertainty in bottleneck models into epistemic (ensemble disagreement) and aleatoric (annotator disagreement) components using credal predictions.

Pith tools