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.

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.

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.

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.