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.

Conformal prediction (CP) is an uncertainty quantification framework that allows for constructing statistically valid prediction sets. Key to the construction of these sets is the notion of a nonconformity function, which assigns a real-valued score to individual data points: only those (hypothetical) data points contribute to a prediction set that sufficiently conform to the data. The point of departure of this work is the observation that CP predictions are invariant against (strictly) monotone transformations of the nonconformity function. In other words, it is only the ordering of the scores that matters, not their quantitative values. Consequently, instead of scoring individual data points, a conformal predictor only needs to be able to compare pairs of data points, deciding which of them is the more conforming one. This suggests an interesting connection between CP and preference learning, in particular learning-to-rank methods, and makes CP amenable to training data in the form of (qualitative) preferences. Elaborating on this connection, we propose methods for preference-based CP and show their usefulness in real-world classification tasks.

In the past couple of years, various approaches to representing and quantifying different types of predictive uncertainty in machine learning, notably in the setting of classification, have been proposed on the basis of second-order probability distributions, i.e., predictions in the form of distributions on probability distributions. A completely conclusive solution has not yet been found, however, as shown by recent criticisms of commonly used uncertainty measures associated with second-order distributions, identifying undesirable theoretical properties of these measures. In light of these criticisms, we propose a set of formal criteria that meaningful uncertainty measures for predictive uncertainty based on second-order distributions should obey. Moreover, we provide a general framework for developing uncertainty measures to account for these criteria, and offer an instantiation based on the Wasserstein distance, for which we prove that all criteria are satisfied.

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.

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.

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.