Yusuf Sale

Yusuf Sale, Michele Caprio, Eyke Hüllermeier

Adequate uncertainty representation and quantification have become imperative in various scientific disciplines, especially in machine learning and artificial intelligence. As an alternative to representing uncertainty via one single probability measure, we consider credal sets (convex sets of probability measures). The geometric representation of credal sets as $d$-dimensional polytopes implies a geometric intuition about (epistemic) uncertainty. In this paper, we show that the volume of the geometric representation of a credal set is a meaningful measure of epistemic uncertainty in the case of binary classification, but less so for multi-class classification. Our theoretical findings highlight the crucial role of specifying and employing uncertainty measures in machine learning in an appropriate way, and for being aware of possible pitfalls.

Michele Caprio, Yusuf Sale, Eyke Hüllermeier et al.

In their seminal 1990 paper, Wasserman and Kadane establish an upper bound for the Bayes' posterior probability of a measurable set $A$, when the prior lies in a class of probability measures $\mathcal{P}$ and the likelihood is precise. They also give a sufficient condition for such upper bound to hold with equality. In this paper, we introduce a generalization of their result by additionally addressing uncertainty related to the likelihood. We give an upper bound for the posterior probability when both the prior and the likelihood belong to a set of probabilities. Furthermore, we give a sufficient condition for this upper bound to become an equality. This result is interesting on its own, and has the potential of being applied to various fields of engineering (e.g. model predictive control), machine learning, and artificial intelligence.

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.

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.

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.