arXiv subjects

Paul Hofman

Publications and source records attributed to Paul Hofman.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Efficient Credal Prediction through Decalibration

A reliable representation of uncertainty is essential for the application of modern machine learning methods in safety-critical settings. In this regard, the use of credal sets (i.e., convex sets of probability distributions) has recently been proposed as a suitable approach to representing epistemic uncertainty. However, as with other approaches to epistemic uncertainty, training credal predictors is computationally complex and usually involves (re-)training an ensemble of models. The resulting computational complexity prevents their adoption for complex models such as foundation models and multi-modal systems. To address this problem, we propose an efficient method for credal prediction that is grounded in the notion of relative likelihood and inspired by techniques for the calibration of probabilistic classifiers. For each class label, our method predicts a range of plausible probabilities in the form of an interval. To produce the lower and upper bounds of these intervals, we propose a technique that we refer to as decalibration. Extensive experiments show that our method yields credal sets with strong performance across diverse tasks, including coverage-efficiency evaluation, out-of-distribution detection, and in-context learning. Notably, we demonstrate credal prediction on models such as TabPFN and CLIP -- architectures for which the construction of credal sets was previously infeasible.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Uncertainty Quantification for Machine Learning: One Size Does Not Fit All

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Credal Prediction based on Relative Likelihood

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.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Uncertainty Quantification with Proper Scoring Rules: Adjusting Measures to Prediction Tasks

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

An Axiomatic Assessment of Entropy- and Variance-based Uncertainty Quantification in Regression

Uncertainty quantification 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 provide a formal way of representing uncertainty in continuous space, using a general parametric formulation, allowing for tractable analysis and evaluation of uncertainty measures. Within this framework, we propose a set of axioms that enable rigorous assessment of total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty measures. Together, this allows for a theoretical examination of uncertainty measures and their corresponding properties. As a specific example, we compare the widely used entropy- and variance-based measures with respect to established predictive models and analyze their limitations and challenges in uncertainty quantification. Our work provides a principled way to understand and develop uncertainty measures in supervised regression, offering theoretical insights and practical guidelines for reliable uncertainty assessment.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Label-wise Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty Quantification

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty with Proper Scoring Rules

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Second-Order Uncertainty Quantification: Variance-Based Measures

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: Are Conditional Entropy and Mutual Information Appropriate Measures?

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Conformal Prediction with Partially Labeled Data

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.

cs.LG↗