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.

Quantifying Epistemic Predictive Uncertainty in Conformal Prediction

We study the problem of quantifying epistemic predictive uncertainty (EPU) -- that is, uncertainty faced at prediction time due to the existence of multiple plausible predictive models -- within the framework of conformal prediction (CP). To expose the implicit model multiplicity underlying CP, we build on recent results showing that, under a mild assumption, any full CP procedure induces a set of closed and convex predictive distributions, commonly referred to as a credal set. Importantly, the conformal prediction region (CPR) coincides exactly with the set of labels to which all distributions in the induced credal set assign probability at least $1-α$. As our first contribution, we prove that this characterisation also holds in split CP. Building on this connection, we then propose a computationally efficient and analytically tractable uncertainty measure, based on \emph{Maximum Mean Imprecision}, to quantify the EPU by measuring the degree of conflicting information within the induced credal set. Experiments on active learning and selective classification demonstrate that the quantified EPU provides substantially more informative and fine-grained uncertainty assessments than reliance on CPR size alone. More broadly, this work highlights the potential of CP serving as a principled basis for decision-making under epistemic uncertainty.

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.

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

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 UQ in regression, offering theoretical insights and practical guidelines for reliable uncertainty assessment.

Online Selective Conformal Prediction: Errors and Solutions

In online selective conformal inference, data arrives sequentially, and prediction intervals are constructed only when an online selection rule is met. Since online selections may break the exchangeability between the selected test datum and the rest of the data, one must correct for this by suitably selecting the calibration data. In this paper, we evaluate existing calibration selection strategies and pinpoint some fundamental errors in the associated claims that guarantee selection-conditional coverage and control of the false coverage rate (FCR). To address these shortcomings, we propose novel calibration selection strategies that provably preserve the exchangeability of the calibration data and the selected test datum. Consequently, we demonstrate that online selective conformal inference with these strategies guarantees both selection-conditional coverage and FCR control. Our theoretical findings are supported by experimental evidence examining tradeoffs between valid methods.

Conformal Prediction Regions are Imprecise Highest Density Regions

Recently, Cella and Martin proved how, under an assumption called consonance, a credal set (i.e. a closed and convex set of probabilities) can be derived from the conformal transducer associated with transductive conformal prediction. We show that the Imprecise Highest Density Region (IHDR) associated with such a credal set corresponds to the classical Conformal Prediction Region. In proving this result, we relate the set of probability density/mass functions (pdf/pmf's) associated with the elements of the credal set to the imprecise probabilistic concept of a cloud. As a result, we establish new relationships between Conformal Prediction and Imprecise Probability (IP) theories. A byproduct of our presentation is the discovery that consonant plausibility functions are monoid homomorphisms, a new algebraic property of an IP tool.

Conformal Prediction in Hierarchical Classification

Conformal prediction has emerged as a widely used framework for constructing valid prediction sets in classification and regression tasks. In this work, we extend the split conformal prediction framework to hierarchical classification, where prediction sets are commonly restricted to internal nodes of a predefined hierarchy, and propose two computationally efficient inference algorithms. The first algorithm returns internal nodes as prediction sets, while the second relaxes this restriction, using the notion of representation complexity, yielding a more general and combinatorial inference problem, but smaller set sizes. Empirical evaluations on several benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms in achieving nominal coverage.

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.

Explaining Bayesian Optimization by Shapley Values Facilitates Human-AI Collaboration

Bayesian optimization (BO) with Gaussian processes (GP) has become an indispensable algorithm for black box optimization problems. Not without a dash of irony, BO is often considered a black box itself, lacking ways to provide reasons as to why certain parameters are proposed to be evaluated. This is particularly relevant in human-in-the-loop applications of BO, such as in robotics. We address this issue by proposing ShapleyBO, a framework for interpreting BO's proposals by game-theoretic Shapley values.They quantify each parameter's contribution to BO's acquisition function. Exploiting the linearity of Shapley values, we are further able to identify how strongly each parameter drives BO's exploration and exploitation for additive acquisition functions like the confidence bound. We also show that ShapleyBO can disentangle the contributions to exploration into those that explore aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Moreover, our method gives rise to a ShapleyBO-assisted human machine interface (HMI), allowing users to interfere with BO in case proposals do not align with human reasoning. We demonstrate this HMI's benefits for the use case of personalizing wearable robotic devices (assistive back exosuits) by human-in-the-loop BO. Results suggest human-BO teams with access to ShapleyBO can achieve lower regret than teams without.

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.