Paul Hofman

Lisa Wimmer, Yusuf Sale, Paul Hofman et al.

The quantification of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in terms of conditional entropy and mutual information, respectively, has recently become quite common in machine learning. While the properties of these measures, which are rooted in information theory, seem appealing at first glance, we identify various incoherencies that call their appropriateness into question. In addition to the measures themselves, we critically discuss the idea of an additive decomposition of total uncertainty into its aleatoric and epistemic constituents. Experiments across different computer vision tasks support our theoretical findings and raise concerns about current practice in uncertainty quantification.

Alireza Javanmardi, Yusuf Sale, Paul Hofman et al.

While the predictions produced by conformal prediction are set-valued, the data used for training and calibration is supposed to be precise. In the setting of superset learning or learning from partial labels, a variant of weakly supervised learning, it is exactly the other way around: training data is possibly imprecise (set-valued), but the model induced from this data yields precise predictions. In this paper, we combine the two settings by making conformal prediction amenable to set-valued training data. We propose a generalization of the conformal prediction procedure that can be applied to set-valued training and calibration data. We prove the validity of the proposed method and present experimental studies in which it compares favorably to natural baselines.

Paul Hofman, Yusuf Sale, Eyke Hüllermeier

Uncertainty representation and quantification are paramount in machine learning and constitute an important prerequisite for safety-critical applications. In this paper, we propose novel measures for the quantification of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty based on proper scoring rules, which are loss functions with the meaningful property that they incentivize the learner to predict ground-truth (conditional) probabilities. We assume two common representations of (epistemic) uncertainty, namely, in terms of a credal set, i.e. a set of probability distributions, or a second-order distribution, i.e., a distribution over probability distributions. Our framework establishes a natural bridge between these representations. We provide a formal justification of our approach and introduce new measures of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty as concrete instantiations.

Yusuf Sale, Paul Hofman, Lisa Wimmer et al.

Uncertainty quantification is a critical aspect of machine learning models, providing important insights into the reliability of predictions and aiding the decision-making process in real-world applications. This paper proposes a novel way to use variance-based measures to quantify uncertainty on the basis of second-order distributions in classification problems. A distinctive feature of the measures is the ability to reason about uncertainties on a class-based level, which is useful in situations where nuanced decision-making is required. Recalling some properties from the literature, we highlight that the variance-based measures satisfy important (axiomatic) properties. In addition to this axiomatic approach, we present empirical results showing the measures to be effective and competitive to commonly used entropy-based measures.

Christopher Bülte, Yusuf Sale, Timo Löhr et al.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is crucial in machine learning, yet most (axiomatic) studies of uncertainty measures focus on classification, leaving a gap in regression settings with limited formal justification and evaluations. In this work, we introduce a set of axioms to rigorously assess measures of aleatoric, epistemic, and total uncertainty in supervised regression. By utilizing a predictive exponential family, we can generalize commonly used approaches for uncertainty representation and corresponding uncertainty measures. More specifically, we analyze the widely used entropy- and variance-based measures regarding limitations and challenges. Our findings provide a principled foundation for uncertainty quantification in regression, offering theoretical insights and practical guidelines for reliable uncertainty assessment.

Paul Hofman, Yusuf Sale, Eyke Hüllermeier

Proper quantification of predictive uncertainty is essential for the use of machine learning in safety-critical applications. Various uncertainty measures have been proposed for this purpose, typically claiming superiority over other measures. In this paper, we argue that there is no single best measure. Instead, uncertainty quantification should be tailored to the specific application. To this end, we use a flexible family of uncertainty measures that distinguishes between total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty of second-order distributions. These measures can be instantiated with specific loss functions, so-called proper scoring rules, to control their characteristics, and we show that different characteristics are useful for different tasks. In particular, we show that, for the task of selective prediction, the scoring rule should ideally match the task loss. On the other hand, for out-of-distribution detection, our results confirm that mutual information, a widely used measure of epistemic uncertainty, performs best. Furthermore, in an active learning setting, epistemic uncertainty based on zero-one loss is shown to consistently outperform other uncertainty measures.

Timo Löhr, Paul Hofman, Felix Mohr et al.

Predictions in the form of sets of probability distributions, so-called credal sets, provide a suitable means to represent a learner's epistemic uncertainty. In this paper, we propose a theoretically grounded approach to credal prediction based on the statistical notion of relative likelihood: The target of prediction is the set of all (conditional) probability distributions produced by the collection of plausible models, namely those models whose relative likelihood exceeds a specified threshold. This threshold has an intuitive interpretation and allows for controlling the trade-off between correctness and precision of credal predictions. We tackle the problem of approximating credal sets defined in this way by means of suitably modified ensemble learning techniques. To validate our approach, we illustrate its effectiveness by experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrating superior uncertainty representation without compromising predictive performance. We also compare our method against several state-of-the-art baselines in credal prediction.

Paul Hofman, Yusuf Sale, Eyke Hüllermeier

We address the problem of uncertainty quantification and propose measures of total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty based on a known decomposition of (strictly) proper scoring rules, a specific type of loss function, into a divergence and an entropy component. This leads to a flexible framework for uncertainty quantification that can be instantiated with different losses (scoring rules), which makes it possible to tailor uncertainty quantification to the use case at hand. We show that this flexibility is indeed advantageous. In particular, we analyze the task of selective prediction and show that the scoring rule should ideally match the task loss. In addition, we perform experiments on two other common tasks. For out-of-distribution detection, our results confirm that a widely used measure of epistemic uncertainty, mutual information, performs best. Moreover, in the setting of active learning, our measure of epistemic uncertainty based on the zero-one-loss consistently outperforms other uncertainty measures.

Yusuf Sale, Paul Hofman, Timo Löhr et al.

We present a novel approach to uncertainty quantification in classification tasks based on label-wise decomposition of uncertainty measures. This label-wise perspective allows uncertainty to be quantified at the individual class level, thereby improving cost-sensitive decision-making and helping understand the sources of uncertainty. Furthermore, it allows to define total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty on the basis of non-categorical measures such as variance, going beyond common entropy-based measures. In particular, variance-based measures address some of the limitations associated with established methods that have recently been discussed in the literature. We show that our proposed measures adhere to a number of desirable properties. Through empirical evaluation on a variety of benchmark data sets -- including applications in the medical domain where accurate uncertainty quantification is crucial -- we establish the effectiveness of label-wise uncertainty quantification.