Claire McNamara

Claire McNamara

Vacuity, or Uncertainty Mass (UM), is commonly used as a metric to evaluate Out-of-Distribution (OOD) detection in Evidential Deep Learning (EDL). It generally involves dividing the number of classes ($K$) by the total strength of belief ($S$) of the model's predictions, where $S$ is derived from summing the Dirichlet parameters. As such, UM is sensitive to the cardinality of $K$. In particular, it is unlikely in practice that there is a linear relationship between $K$ and $S$ as $K$ and $S$ increase due to the nature of EDL (suppressing incorrectly assigned evidence). As a result, when comparing In Distribution (ID) and OOD results, it is important that $K_{\mathrm{ID}}$ and $K_{\mathrm{OOD}}$ are equal; something that is not always ensured in practice. We provide an empirical demonstration of how results for AUROC and AUPR can substantially differ when class cardinality between ID and OOD differs by 1, with AUROC differing by as much as 0.318 and AUPR by 0.613 for standard EDL, and AUROC by 0.360 and AUPR by 0.683 for IB-EDL. More concretely, our findings isolate an evaluation artefact: when K differs between ID and OOD, AUROC/AUPR can be artificially inflated without any change in model predictions. We further discuss the evaluation of EDL over causal language models using Multiple-Choice Question-Answer (MCQA) datasets and argue for clearer definitions of ID and OOD in this context. Our primary contribution is an empirical and theoretical demonstration that vacuity-based OOD detection in EDL-fine-tuned LLMs is highly sensitive to uncontrolled differences in evaluated class cardinality.

Claire McNamara, Lucy Hederman, Declan O'Sullivan

Knowledge Graphs (KGs) enable the integration and representation of complex information across domains, but their semantic richness and structural complexity create substantial barriers for lay users without expertise in semantic web technologies. When encountering an unfamiliar KG, such users face a distinct orientation challenge: they do not know what questions are possible, how the knowledge is structured, or how to begin exploration. This paper identifies and theorises this phenomenon as the Initial Exploration Problem (IEP). Drawing on theories from information behaviour and human-computer interaction, including ASK, exploratory search, information foraging, and cognitive load theory, we develop a conceptual framing of the IEP characterised by three interdependent barriers: scope uncertainty, ontology opacity, and query incapacity. We argue that these barriers converge at the moment of first contact, distinguishing the IEP from related concepts that presuppose an existing starting point or information goal. Analysing KG exploration interfaces at the level of interaction primitives, we suggest that many systems rely on epistemic assumptions that do not hold at first contact. This reveals a structural gap in the design space: the absence of interaction primitives for scope revelation, mechanisms that communicate what a KG contains without requiring users to formulate queries or interpret ontological structures. In articulating the IEP, this paper provides a theoretical lens for evaluating KG interfaces and for designing entry-point scaffolding that supports initial exploration.