Subjective Risk Decomposition: A New View for Uncertainty Quantification

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is essential for reliable decision-making in safety-critical applications in probabilistic machine learning. For regression problems, dominant scalar UQ approaches - notably, those based on proper scoring rules - measure uncertainty via pointwise predictive risk. This can lead to counterintuitive results when the target statistic is not the conditional expectation. We propose an alternative framework, in which uncertainty is characterised by the volume of the most probable subset of a distribution's support. QUEST (Quantifying Uncertainty via highest dEnSiTy regions) is a novel approach to UQ based on the concentration of Lebesgue measure at a distribution's peak(s), evaluated at one or more values of a robustness parameter $α$. We establish connections between our measures and classical statistics from information theory and economics. We show that, unlike popular alternatives based on proper scoring rules, QUEST measures of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty satisfy a set of axioms adapted from the UQ literature, including monotonicity under distributional spread and invariance to location shifts. Selective prediction benchmarks confirm that QUEST performs favourably against standard measures such as variance and differential entropy.

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.

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.