Can machines be uncertain?

The distinction between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty has received considerable attention in machine learning research, mainly in the context of supervised learning but also in other settings such as generative modeling. In this paper, we offer a machine learning perspective on uncertainty modeling for dynamical systems, which has been studied much less so far. In particular, we ask: what uncertainties do we need for dynamical systems? We discuss sources of uncertainty, clarify their nature (aleatoric or epistemic), and consider how the objectives of representing and quantifying uncertainty vary across different tasks.

Modern agent systems can turn uncertainty into overconfidence. Fragile upstream decisions are often exposed to downstream components as clean intermediate artifacts, while the uncertainty behind those decisions is lost at the interface. As a result, local ambiguity can become system-level error amplification. We argue that this reveals an interface bottleneck in agent uncertainty propagation: uncertainty does not propagate simply because a trajectory contains uncertain steps; it propagates only when it survives the handoff between components. We define uncertain decision handoff as the transfer of an intermediate decision made under uncertainty, and identify confidence laundering as a failure mode in which fragile upstream states are repackaged as procedurally valid artifacts that downstream agents over-trust. To address this bottleneck, we propose latent uncertainty as an uncertainty-bearing carrier attached to decision handoffs. Rather than replacing text with hidden states, latent uncertainty aims to preserve pre-commitment fragility in a form that downstream components can use. This position shifts agent uncertainty propagation from step-wise uncertainty estimation toward uncertainty-preserving interface design for more recoverable agent systems.

This paper surveys uncertainty-aware explainable artificial intelligence (UAXAI), examining how uncertainty is incorporated into explanatory pipelines and how such methods are evaluated. Across the literature, three recurring approaches to uncertainty quantification emerge (Bayesian, Monte Carlo, and Conformal methods), alongside distinct strategies for integrating uncertainty into explanations: assessing trustworthiness, constraining models or explanations, and explicitly communicating uncertainty. Evaluation practices remain fragmented and largely model centered, with limited attention to users and inconsistent reporting of reliability properties (e.g., calibration, coverage, explanation stability). Recent work leans towards calibration, distribution free techniques and recognizes explainer variability as a central concern. We argue that progress in UAXAI requires unified evaluation principles that link uncertainty propagation, robustness, and human decision-making, and highlight counterfactual and calibration approaches as promising avenues for aligning interpretability with reliability.