REVIEW 1 cited by
A view on model misspecification in uncertainty quantification
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
Estimating uncertainty of machine learning models is essential to assess the quality of the predictions that these models provide. However, there are several factors that influence the quality of uncertainty estimates, one of which is the amount of model misspecification. Model misspecification always exists as models are mere simplifications or approximations to reality. The question arises whether the estimated uncertainty under model misspecification is reliable or not. In this paper, we argue that model misspecification should receive more attention, by providing thought experiments and contextualizing these with relevant literature.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Uncertainty Quantification for Misspecified Machine Learned Interatomic Potentials
POPS uncertainty bounds from misspecification-aware parameter sampling envelop DFT reference values for a broad range of tungsten properties and for MACE-MPA-0 energies.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.