Quantification of Credal Uncertainty: A Distance-Based Approach

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.

Conformal prediction (CP) is a widely used frequentist framework to quantify uncertainty by constructing prediction sets with user-specified marginal coverage guarantees. In practice, CP is typically applied on top of probabilistic classifiers, which are able to express aleatoric but not epistemic uncertainty. In this paper, we consider the question of how to optimally employ CP on top of a more expressive formalism, namely credal sets, which can express both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. More specifically, we propose probabilistic Bernoulli prediction sets (BPS) and derive a variant that achieves conditional coverage for valid credal sets while remaining minimal in expected size. We then address the more realistic scenario in which the validity of the credal sets is not guaranteed. Assuming access to calibration data with ground-truth distributions over labels, we apply conformal risk control to BPS and derive a PAC-style guarantee: with high probability over the data, the achieved conditional coverage is at least the desired level. We validate our theoretical findings empirically over various datasets.

In safety-critical classification, the cost of failure is often asymmetric, yet Bayesian deep learning summarises epistemic uncertainty with a single scalar, mutual information (MI), that cannot distinguish whether a model's ignorance involves a benign or safety-critical class. We decompose MI into a per-class vector $C_k(x)=σ_k^{2}/(2μ_k)$, with $μ_k{=}\mathbb{E}[p_k]$ and $σ_k^2{=}\mathrm{Var}[p_k]$ across posterior samples. The decomposition follows from a second-order Taylor expansion of the entropy; the $1/μ_k$ weighting corrects boundary suppression and makes $C_k$ comparable across rare and common classes. By construction $\sum_k C_k \approx \mathrm{MI}$, and a companion skewness diagnostic flags inputs where the approximation degrades. After characterising the axiomatic properties of $C_k$, we validate it on three tasks: (i) selective prediction for diabetic retinopathy, where critical-class $C_k$ reduces selective risk by 34.7% over MI and 56.2% over variance baselines; (ii) out-of-distribution detection on clinical and image benchmarks, where $\sum_k C_k$ achieves the highest AUROC and the per-class view exposes asymmetric shifts invisible to MI; and (iii) a controlled label-noise study in which $\sum_k C_k$ shows less sensitivity to injected aleatoric noise than MI under end-to-end Bayesian training, while both metrics degrade under transfer learning. Across all tasks, the quality of the posterior approximation shapes uncertainty at least as strongly as the choice of metric, suggesting that how uncertainty is propagated through the network matters as much as how it is measured.