CLEAR: Calibrated Learning for Epistemic and Aleatoric Risk

Conformal Prediction provides distribution-free prediction intervals with guaranteed coverage, but its reliance on a single global calibration threshold obscures the sources of uncertainty at the instance level. In particular, it conflates irreducible noise with uncertainty induced by heterogeneous training data (aleatoric), model limitations, or calibration mismatch (epistemic), offering little insight into why an interval is wide or whether it could be reduced. We introduce an uncertainty-aware explainability framework that analyses the reducibility of calibration-induced epistemic conformal uncertainty via progressive calibration localisation for regression tasks. The approach is diagnostic rather than causal: it does not estimate true aleatoric or epistemic uncertainty, but explains how conformal intervals contract and stabilise as calibration support is localised around a test instance. Across benchmarks and real-world data, absolute reducible uncertainty aligns with epistemic proxies, while its relative contribution varies by task, revealing regimes hidden by interval width. This instance-level view complements conformal uncertainty, enhancing interpretability without altering the predictor or coverage.

Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying machine learning models in high-stakes settings. However, classical calibration only assesses the reliability of predicted probabilities and does not evaluate whether epistemic uncertainty estimates are themselves trustworthy. This limitation is particularly relevant for second-order classification models. We introduce epistemic calibration, a principled criterion that measures whether reported epistemic uncertainty faithfully reflects the dispersion of model predictions around the ground truth. We show that epistemic calibration is a strictly stronger notion than classical calibration and captures failure modes invisible to standard metrics. We relate this work to the existing literature through an impossibility theorem that holds under the epistemic calibration hypothesis. To operationalize this concept, we propose the Expected Epistemic Calibration Error (EECE), which we prove to be a consistent estimator of a True Epistemic Calibration Error (TECE). Experiments across a broad range of uncertainty quantification methods show that epistemic calibration is a coherent and meaningful criterion and reveal substantial differences across methods, despite similar predictive performance.

Reliable uncertainty estimates are critical in safety-sensitive applications, where understanding the sources of predictive uncertainty is essential. This often requires disentangling epistemic uncertainty from aleatoric uncertainty, yet these uncertainty types are not defined consistently across the literature, making it difficult to assess whether a method produces accurate uncertainty estimates. Evaluation is further complicated by the fact that ground-truth epistemic uncertainty is typically unavailable. Existing benchmarks therefore mostly rely on proxy tasks such as out-of-distribution detection, which do not provide complete ground-truth uncertainty targets and offer limited insight into the structure and quality of uncertainty estimates. We propose a unified definition of uncertainty as pointwise posterior risk, the expected loss of a predictor under the distribution of plausible ground-truth functions given the data. This view combines Bayesian uncertainty over functions with estimator-dependent deviations from the posterior mean, capturing effects such as misspecification and optimization error. This formulation constitutes the foundation of a theory-backed benchmark that enables direct computation of oracle epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty using semi-synthetic datasets with real covariates and known generative processes. By avoiding proxy evaluations, the benchmark enables fine-grained analysis of uncertainty estimates. Empirically, we find that accurate prediction does not guarantee reliable uncertainty disentanglement. The benchmark reveals practically useful differences between methods, identifying approaches with meaningful alignment to oracle uncertainty targets while exposing sensitivity to datasets and modeling choices.