Joshua Stiller

Yusuf Sale, Christopher Bülte, Felix Czaja et al.

The distinction between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty has received considerable attention in machine learning research, mainly in the context of supervised learning but also in other settings such as generative modeling. In this paper, we offer a machine learning perspective on uncertainty modeling for dynamical systems, which has been studied much less so far. In particular, we ask: what uncertainties do we need for dynamical systems? We discuss sources of uncertainty, clarify their nature (aleatoric or epistemic), and consider how the objectives of representing and quantifying uncertainty vary across different tasks.

Joshua Stiller, Santo M. A. R. Thies, Felix Czaja et al.

Understanding model predictions is essential for physical applications, where outputs often inform safety-critical decisions, such as structural load assessment, weather warnings, and clinical diagnosis. Shapley values satisfy many desirable properties as an attribution method, but their computational cost during inference hinders their practical use. Current amortized explainers, such as FastSHAP, are limited to homogeneous inputs, which is problematic for physical applications where data often comes from irregular grids and geometries. We introduce OperatorSHAP, a grid-agnostic attribution method and training procedure that allows us to train FastSHAP-like explainers for neural operators. We establish a theoretical framework for attributions in function space, connecting to Aumann-Shapley values. We further show that OperatorSHAP's explanations are consistent with state-of-the-art discrete Shapley values across resolutions and transfer across grid sizes without retraining.

Annika Schneider, Tommy Rochussen, Joshua Stiller et al.

Uncertainty estimates in machine learning are typically evaluated using generic metrics such as the negative log-likelihood and expected calibration error, yet good performance on such metrics does not necessarily imply high utility in downstream decisions. We introduce decision-alignment, a criterion that reveals which evaluation metrics meaningfully align with downstream utilities. Applying this framework, we show that many widely used uncertainty metrics are either misaligned with common decision problems or encode pathological prior beliefs about the downstream task. We then propose prior-weighted utility metrics, a special class of proper scoring rules that provides decision-aligned uncertainty evaluation. Across benchmark experiments and real-world case studies, our metrics consistently align with realized decision utility, while conventional metrics do not. Our results surface flaws in the current UQ evaluation protocol and offer a principled extension of existing metrics toward decision-relevant UQ evaluation.