Can we trust our models? Epistemic calibration in second-order classification

We characterize the minimax rate of estimating the second-order calibration error for binary classification, which quantifies whether a higher-order predictor's epistemic-uncertainty estimate matches the conditional variance of the label probability on its level sets. Our key observation is that the sech perturbation kernel, previously used only to enforce smoothness of calibration functions, in fact makes them analytic in a strip of half-width $hπ/2$. Polynomial regression then estimates the calibration error at rate $\tilde{O}(1/\sqrt{n})$, with explicit constants, a qualitative improvement over the $O(n^{-1/4})$ rate achievable by bucketing or kernel smoothing. A matching $Ω(1/\sqrt{n})$ lower bound establishes minimax optimality up to logarithmic factors. As a corollary, we give the first finite-sample guarantee for second-order Platt scaling, yielding a post-hoc procedure that recalibrates both the mean prediction and the epistemic-variance estimate of any higher-order predictor. Along the way, we provide a bucket-free definition of second-order calibration and relate it quantitatively to the bucketed formulation of Ahdritz et al. [2025]. Our experiments confirm the predicted rate and the quality of the recalibrated uncertainties.

Current evaluation of epistemic uncertainty relies on tasks such as out-ofdistribution detection and active learning. However, the Bayes-optimal decision strategies for these tasks do not coincide with the scores commonly used to quantify epistemic uncertainty. Building on the epistemic reject-option framework, we evaluate epistemic uncertainty using its ability to identify regret, the reducible error. Formulating selective prediction as a constrained optimization over coverage, expected risk, and regret, we prove the optimal selector is a thresholded convex combination of the ground-truth aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties. This theoretical unification exposes a weakness in recent uncertainty disentanglement literature: we demonstrate that standard correlation metrics between learned components do not necessarily predict their actual operational utility. We instead propose to evaluate the achievable risk, regret, coverage surface of the decomposition as a diagnostic for joint disentanglement and utility. Benchmarking standard methods on datasets with dense human annotations reveals that decision-theoretic rankings can disagree substantially with proxy-task rankings, including pairwise rank inversions between methods that are top-ranked on one criterion and bottom-ranked on other.

Accurate uncertainty quantification is critical for reliable predictive modeling. Existing methods typically address either aleatoric uncertainty due to measurement noise or epistemic uncertainty resulting from limited data, but not both in a balanced manner. We propose CLEAR, a calibration method with two distinct parameters, $γ_1$ and $γ_2$, to combine the two uncertainty components and improve the conditional coverage of predictive intervals for regression tasks. CLEAR is compatible with any pair of aleatoric and epistemic estimators; we show how it can be used with (i) quantile regression for aleatoric uncertainty and (ii) ensembles drawn from the Predictability-Computability-Stability (PCS) framework for epistemic uncertainty. Across 17 diverse real-world datasets, CLEAR achieves an average improvement of 28.3% and 17.5% in the interval width compared to the two individually calibrated baselines while maintaining nominal coverage. Similar improvements are observed when applying CLEAR to Deep Ensembles (epistemic) and Simultaneous Quantile Regression (aleatoric). The benefits are especially evident in scenarios dominated by high aleatoric or epistemic uncertainty. Project page: https://unco3892.github.io/clear/