Epistemic Uncertainty

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit hallucinations, presenting a major barrier to reliability in complex reasoning tasks. While traditional detection methods rely on output-based confidence metrics, these logits are often miscalibrated by modern alignment techniques. In this paper, we investigate the temporal volatility of internal attention mechanisms as an alternative diagnostic signal for hallucination that does not depend on output calibration. By introducing an unsupervised metric for attention dispersion, we show that epistemic uncertainty leaves a measurable trace within intermediate layers, where spikes in attention entropy are associated with reasoning breakdowns. We evaluate our approach on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K and MATH-500) using the Qwen2.5 model family (1.5B and 3B parameters), finding statistically significant AUC improvements of up to +0.076 over output-based baselines across all tested conditions. These findings suggest that attention dispersion is a promising complement to traditional hallucination detection methods, requiring further investigation across broader model families and task domains.

Learning and decision-making in animals are often modeled as Bayesian processes, where sensory evidence is integrated with prior beliefs to guide behavior in the face of uncertainty. But what are the inherent neural dynamics that give rise to this ability, and how could they be replicated in computing systems? This abstract discusses a biologically grounded framework in which noisy neural and synaptic dynamics perform inference and learning via stochastic sampling from an internal energy function, capturing uncertainty over latent states and model parameters through neural and synaptic variability, respectively. This enables approaches such as predictive coding networks to account for epistemic uncertainty via Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling. Drawing a parallel between intrinsic noise in biological systems and electrical noise in emerging probabilistic analogue memory technologies, we highlight how analogue in-memory computing hardware naturally emerges as the solution for massively scalable and energy-efficient probabilistic inference.

We adapt two classical statistical estimators for quantifying uncertainty to modern deep learning, in order to provide clearer insights into uncertainty attributable to two sources : aleatoric uncertainty, or locally scarce data. Our approach leverages recent advances in approximate Fisher Information Matrices, to enable scaling to actual architectures. Experimental results demonstrate how each test points is differentially impacted by both sources, highlighting the practical utility of our estimators in improving the robustness of real-world applications.

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.

This paper proposes the Bayesian Expected Uncertainty Reduction (B-EUR) model, which formalizes the value of trying a candidate design action as its expected reduction of epistemic uncertainty about action--outcome relations. The model addresses one part of the Uncertainty Driven Action (UDA) model's open question concerning how changes in uncertainty perception determine action selection. We examine two environmental properties: generalizability, or how far knowledge from one trial extends to neighboring candidates, and outcome discriminability, or how clearly differences among outcomes can be distinguished. We tested the model through simulations and human experiments using a graph-shape guessing task that isolates learning about action--outcome relations under a limited trial budget. Epistemic value followed an inverted-U-shaped relationship with generalizability and increased with outcome discriminability in the simulations. In the human experiments, the subjective value of trying and enjoyment followed inverted-U-shaped relationships with generalizability, while choice behavior reflected both properties. The B-EUR model provides a computational account of candidate-action evaluation within uncertainty-driven design activity and offers implications for constructing prototype sets, framing design problems, and organizing feedback to support informative exploration.

Bayesian causal discovery seeks to determine the posterior distribution of causal theories, which are interpreted as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that explain the observed data. The resulting posterior allows systematic reasoning regarding epistemic uncertainty within these theories. Nonetheless, finding such graphs is difficult due to identifiability problems and limited observational data. Furthermore, precisely approximating posterior over graphs is challenging given vast range of potential DAGs. Recent Bayesian approaches have addressed some of these challenges, yet they remain limited as they fail to encode dependencies between edges, and lack principled ways to incorporate domain knowledge as inductive biases during the search process. To overcome these limitations, we propose SVI-DAG, a structured variational inference approach to Bayesian causal discovery using observational data and prior beliefs that uses normalizing flows to model dependencies between edges, supporting expressive and multimodal posterior learning over DAGs. To mitigate mode seeking behaviour in evidence lower bound optimization and promote mode coverage, we use stein variational gradient descent to update the node potentials using a kernel in acyclicity space. We evaluate SVI-DAG against 5 state-of-the-art Bayesian DAG learning methods and demonstrate superior performance in uncertainty quantification while remaining competitive in terms of structural accuracy.

Combining Bayesian learning and quantitative verification is a powerful toolset for analysing key quantitative properties of software systems, like reliability and response time. However, the accuracy and robustness of verification results strongly depend on the prior knowledge (PK) underlying Bayesian inference. This knowledge reflects original beliefs about the probability of events and typically depends on domain expertise. Using inaccurate or uninformative PK can negatively affect quantitative analysis, yielding incorrect verification results. Our EPIK approach tackles this important challenge by eliciting and embedding PK in quantitative verification equipped with Bayesian estimators. Unlike existing approaches that require PK on formal model transition parameters, EPIK leverages system-level properties that are directly observable and are linked to real-world semantics. EPIK formulates a twofold optimisation problem to derive the distributions of unknown transition parameters and then embeds these distributions to verify new or difficult-to-measure (elusive) properties. The detailed experimental evaluation using multiple variants of real-world case studies and diverse EPIK instantiations shows its effectiveness, flexibility and generality.

In noisy social dilemmas, intended actions are stochastically corrupted before execution, so an observed defection may reflect hostile intent or action error. Standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations treat executed actions as states, structurally precluding this distinction and causing systematic over-retaliation. We introduce a Partially Observable MDP (POMDP) formulation encoding opponent intentions as latent states and executed actions as noisy observations, solved within the active inference (AIF) framework with a cost function that decomposes into epistemic and pragmatic components that jointly address inferring current intent and learning how intent evolves. In the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma with symmetric noise, we derive a critical noise threshold governing cooperation collapse, connecting it to a fixed-point condition on learned priors. Experiments reveal that the value of intention inference is context-dependent: the POMDP provides consistent advantages against conditionally cooperative opponents, but mutual intention inference under sufficient noise produces correlated belief-driven collapse. The advantage is specific to games where intent attribution is decision-relevant.

When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation. Yet whether (and how) Explainable AI (XAI) can satisfy this right in practice remains poorly understood, with direct implications for individuals' ability to contest automated decisions that affect their lives. This paper presents a systematic literature review of XAI in the context of the EU Right to Explanation, with particular focus on Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR, Art. 86 AI Act (AIA), and related instruments. We consider papers published from 2024 onwards, as the final version of the AIA was published in July 2024---with Art. 86 being added late. From 2643 initial records identified by a deliberately broad search, we review 57 full texts, of which only 19 papers demonstrate substantive integration of both legal and technical perspectives, showing gaps in the interdisciplinary synthesis of the current regulatory framework. We document three problematic patterns across the corpus: Most misidentify the GDPR legal basis; few engage with the CJEU's Dun & Bradstreet judgment (likely due to publication timing); and the distinction between explanation form (governed by addressee) and content (governed by legal purpose) is often conflated. We conceptualize this as the Addressee/Purpose Framework, propose a four-phase blueprint for operationalization, and identify six concrete open research questions. Without further progress, the Right to Explanation risks remaining a formal obligation without a technically realizable path to compliance.

In social learning, agents learn not only from direct evidence but also through interactions with their peers. We investigate the role of imprecision in such interactions and ask whether it can improve the effectiveness of the collective learning process. To that end we propose a model of social learning where beliefs are equivalent to formulas in a propositional language, and where agents learn from each other by combining their beliefs according to a fusion operator. The latter is parametrised so as to allow for different levels of imprecision, where a more imprecise fusion operator tends to generates a more imprecise fused belief when the two combined beliefs differ. In this context we describe both difference equation models and agent-based simulations of social learning under a variety of conditions and with different initial biases. The results presented suggest that for populations with a strong initial bias towards incorrect beliefs some level of imprecision in fusion can improve learning accuracy across a range of learning conditions. Furthermore, such benefits of imprecision are consistent with a stability analysis of the fixed points of the proposed difference equation models.

Hybrid mechanistic/data-driven models, which combine first-principles with learned components, are increasingly used in process engineering and scientific machine learning. Common hybrid modeling designs are specified primarily through their architectures and training losses, which offers a limited basis for a shared semantic interface to compare or verify them across domains, with comparatively little attention paid to epistemic uncertainty in the mechanistic part. We bridge hybrid modeling and neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI by reconstructing these designs as instances of NeSy interface. The resulting translation, Hybrid-to-NeSy (H2N), places mechanistic knowledge on the language side, learned modules on the belief side, and validity domains together with constraints on the logic side. For each design, H2N then yields an explicit NeSy inference functional and a logic-belief decomposition. From this decomposition we derive two metrics: structural violation rate (SVR), measuring whether the learned belief respects the mechanistic structure; and belief dispersion (BD), measuring how concentrated the learned plausibility is, serving as a hybrid model's epistemic uncertainty in its mechanistic part. We instantiate H2N on a case study of a structured hybrid model for binary classification under label noise and show that models with higher SVR and BD exhibit greater variability in held-out accuracy. Under structural distribution shift, H2N further quantifies a model's uncertainty during extrapolations, whereas test accuracy reveals the same shift only post hoc.

Machine learning models for medical image analysis typically lack a reliable measure of confidence, limiting their use in ambiguous or atypical cases. Here we show that Monte Carlo dropout, applied to a multi-task chest-radiograph classifier (eight thoracic findings, 137,593 training images), provides an epistemic uncertainty signal that tracks generalisation across training-set scales and flags confident yet error-prone predictions. Adding this signal to the point prediction raised error-detection AUROC from 0.74 to 0.77 ($Δ$AUROC +0.023, 95% CI [+0.014, +0.033]). In a controlled 2x2 factorial experiment, a clinical-decision-support agent exploited this uncertainty only when it was delivered as a binary error-risk flag rather than as raw scores, cutting confident misdiagnoses on unreliable findings from 8.5% to 2.7%. Epistemic uncertainty estimation thus carries decision-relevant information beyond point predictions, but its value for downstream agents depends on how it is communicated.

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.

Many signal processing systems ultimately exist to {act}. Whenever the state variable that determines the action to be taken by a decision maker, or agent, is uncertain, the way that uncertainty is represented decides how well the agent performs and how much its performance can be trusted. This lecture note develops, from first principles and within a single decision-theoretic setting, the link between the {objective} and the knowledge of an agent and the form of uncertainty representation that is sufficient to act optimally. To start, assuming a known environment distribution, we show that a risk-neutral agent needs the posterior distribution over the state, whereas a risk-averse agent can rely without loss of optimality on a {prediction set} and a worst-case decision rule. We then turn to the case in which the environment is unknown, and identify three complementary approaches to address the resulting epistemic uncertainty: calibration of a fixed predictor, credal (ambiguity) sets with distributionally robust optimization, and Bayesian inference over model parameters. The common thread is that reliable decisions require an uncertainty representation matched to the decision objective and to the knowledge profile of the agent, together with a guarantee that certifies the utility the agent will actually obtain.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

Training data for machine learning is routinely collected by a selection process the model never sees: loans are observed only when granted, outcomes only when a test was ordered. The standard fixes -- importance weighting, covariate-shift correction, MAR imputation -- assume selection is ignorable given observables. Econometrics solved the harder case in 1979: Heckman's two-equation model jointly fits a probit selection equation and an outcome equation linked through correlated errors, and the inverse-Mills-ratio term corrects for selection on unobservables, where importance weighting is structurally helpless. We instantiate this for deep epistemic uncertainty: a deep outcome network, a linear selection head, and a joint bivariate-normal likelihood over all units, ensembled for predictive variance. In a controlled generator where sampling probability depends on an unobservable correlated (rho up to 0.9) with the outcome noise, deep ensembles, MC dropout, and GP baselines are overconfident exactly where data was avoided: coverage of nominal-90% intervals falls to 64.4% at rho=0.9, and importance weighting with oracle propensities does not fix it (43.1%) -- reweighting corrects the covariate distribution, not the conditional bias E[y|x,selected] != E[y|x]. The Heckman correction restores coverage (88.9%) when the selection equation has an instrument -- a variable affecting selection but not the outcome -- and degrades measurably without one (40.3%); we chart this honesty curve rather than hide it. On real tabular data with induced MNAR selection, the corrected intervals are the best-calibrated (lowest region-ECE) non-oracle method in selected-against regions; baselines matching its raw coverage do so only by over-widening everywhere. Our estimators reproduce classic Stata output to seven digits. We state which identification regime a practitioner is in, and release the code.

Vision-language-action models (VLAs) combine vision-language backbones with expressive generative action heads trained via flow matching on large-scale robotic datasets. Despite their strong empirical performance in robotic manipulation, VLAs lack mechanisms to quantify confidence in their predictions and to detect when their actions may be unreliable. This presents a critical limitation for real-world deployment in non-stationary environments, where models inevitably encounter scenarios outside their pretraining distribution and may fail without warning. To address this, we derive an efficient method for quantifying epistemic uncertainty in flow-matching models by leveraging velocity-field disagreement (VFD) across a small ensemble. We successfully use this uncertainty estimate for failure detection during deployment and active fine-tuning of flow-based VLAs. To this end, we propose SAVE, a framework for uncertainty-guided active multitask fine-tuning that reduces the number of costly expert demonstrations required to adapt VLAs to new tasks. Through extensive experiments on the LIBERO benchmark, we demonstrate that VFD yields better-calibrated uncertainty estimates predictive of downstream performance, that VFD achieves strong performance in detecting failures, and that uncertainty-guided data acquisition with SAVE requires at least 22% fewer samples than baselines. In summary, our work shows that quantifying epistemic uncertainty in flow-based VLAs improves both failure awareness and adaptation. Project website: tum-lsy.github.io/uq_vla/.

Recursive multi-step forecasting is usually framed as distribution shift: models are trained on observed histories but deployed on their own predictions. We show this framing is incomplete by proving that, under partial observability or state truncation, recursive rollout is also an epistemic underidentification problem. Even with deterministic latent dynamics, one-step Bayes supervision identifies behavior only on observed contexts and need not identify the deployed recursive predictor once rollout queries self-generated induced states whose correct local targets are not determined by numeric state alone. We formalize this with induced states $Z$ and provenance variables $P$, and derive a decomposition of induced-state error into teacher-forcing/rollout mismatch, representation--class approximation, and provenance information gaps. Empirically, we show that rollout enters a distinct induced-state regime, that fixed induced states define a distinct local corrective task, and that closed-loop gains arise not only from local adaptation but also from changing the induced states visited during rollout. Using a simple binary provenance encoding, provenance-aware correction can further improve performance, though gains are conditional rather than uniform. These results recast exposure bias as reasoning under self-induced epistemic uncertainty.

The standard taxonomy of predictive uncertainty defines epistemic uncertainty as the part removable by collecting more data, while the standard measure identifies it with a mutual-information term. We prove the definition and the measure are extensionally inconsistent. On an explicit construction, the measure assigns all uncertainty to the epistemic class, yet no quantity of training data reduces it. Reducibility is instead a property of the pair (uncertainty, acquisition class), and the dichotomy resolves into three parts: aleatoric, sample-reducible epistemic, and mechanism-reducible epistemic uncertainty. An exact identity for the value of an observation shows that in-distribution data never reduces mechanism-irreducible uncertainty and generically increases it. Ensemble disagreement, the deployed epistemic estimate, tracks the training procedure rather than the epistemic term. It collapses to zero beneath a positive truth under consistent training, and equals hyperparameter-scaled initialization noise under interpolation. A finite-sample falsification test and seed-swept experiments confirm the theory.

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.

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.

Safe exploration is a prerequisite for deploying reinforcement learning (RL) agents in safety-critical domains. In this paper, we approach safe exploration through the lens of epistemic uncertainty, where the actor's sensitivity to parameter perturbations serves as a practical proxy for regions of high uncertainty. We propose Sharpness-Aware Policy Optimization (SHAPO), a sharpness-aware policy update rule that evaluates gradients at perturbed parameters, making policy updates pessimistic with respect to the actor's epistemic uncertainty. Analytically we show that this adjustment implicitly reweighs policy gradients, amplifying the influence of rare unsafe actions while tempering contributions from already safe ones, thereby biasing learning toward conservative behavior in under-explored regions. Across several continuous-control tasks, our method consistently improves both safety and task performance over existing baselines, significantly expanding their Pareto frontiers.

Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user. Existing evaluations typically measure this either by assessing what it takes to make a model shift a binary endorsement or by eliciting an explicit probability in a proposition. However, much user-facing sycophantic behavior is demonstrated through shifts in graded support expressed through ordinary language. We propose the AI Epistemic Deference Index (AEDI): a continuous, unidimensional score representing how sensitive the support expressed in a model's output is to the attitude expressed in a user's prompt. To generate AEDI, we provide a new protocol for estimating probabilities from natural language outputs, using LLMs-as-judges validated for consistency and correlation to human judgment. We deploy it on a new curated database of 500 propositions across diverse topics and 16,000 prompts varying in user attitude, testing eight prominent models. Every model exhibits substantial deference, though with large and systematic differences across providers, with Claude models demonstrating the least, and Grok and Gemini models the most. The effect is amplified in prompts requesting a written artifact, and concentrated on propositions where models hold weaker priors. We release AEDI as an easy-to-update benchmark and measurement pipeline for output-level sycophancy evaluation.

Extracting reporting obligations from EU legislation is critical for assessing and reducing regulatory reporting burden. However, distinguishing reporting requirements from structurally similar provisions requires specialised legal understanding. Current legal NLP methods lack specialised datasets with clear guidelines and comparative evaluation of extraction paradigms and domain adaptation strategies. We curate EURO-5K, a corpus of sentence-level reporting obligations and challenging negative examples from 136 EU legislative acts. On this dataset, we train and compare discriminative token-classification models (BERT-style) and generative span-extraction models (LLMs), evaluating both full fine-tuning and parameter-efficient QLoRA against baselines (pattern and dependency-based extraction, few-shot prompting). Results show that fully fine-tuned generic and legal BERT models achieve similar performance (0.89 F1), while fine-tuned LLMs match encoder accuracy for sentence-level extraction. Legal pretraining offers only small gains for generative models. In contrast, it is clearly beneficial when adaptation capacity is constrained, as parameter-efficient tuning of Legal-BERT outperforms its generic counterpart. Learning curve analysis demonstrates that legal pretraining accelerates early learning with minimal data. All approaches converge around 3K samples with diminishing returns thereafter, validating dataset sufficiency. Cross-dataset evaluation on two external regulatory corpora shows that our models behave as specialised reporting obligation extractors rather than generic regulatory classifiers. We release EURO-5K, trained models, and an interactive demo with explainability visualizations and structured RDF export. These demonstrate that both paradigms and parameter-efficient training provide practical tools for regulatory compliance automation.

Public consultations generate large volumes of data in the form of stakeholder submissions that are practically unfeasible to analyse manually. We present an end-to-end LLM-based pipeline and interactive dashboard for structured topic extraction from regulatory consultation submissions, demonstrated on the European Commission's Digital Fairness Act (DFA) public call for evidence as a case study. The system processes raw PDF attachments and web-form responses, extracts topic annotations, and grounds every extraction in a verbatim quote from the source text. Applied to 4,322 DFA submissions, the pipeline produced 15,368 topic annotations supported by 20,951 verbatim evidence quotes. Three principles govern the proposed design: verbatim grounding, full traceability, and transparency by design. The dashboard exposes the full extraction dataset through five analytical views, from dataset-level topic overviews to individual paragraph drill-downs, with every result traceable to its source. Beyond the predefined DFA topic categories, the pipeline generated certain stakeholder concerns, such as Age Verification, Payment Processor Censorship, and Digital Ownership, that a fixed-taxonomy approach would have missed. The pipeline is domain-generic; adapting it to a new consultation requires only a prompt update and a new dataset. A live demo is available at https://dfa-dashboard.thalesbertaglia.com/. The code and processed data are publicly available at https://github.com/thalesbertaglia/dfa-dashboard.

While parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods like low-rank adaptation (LoRA) are standard for large language models, principled estimation of epistemic uncertainty remains challenging. Recent results in the LoRA regime suggest that discrete multi-mode approaches such as deep ensembles offer little benefit over single-mode methods. This contradicts broader observations in deep learning, where ensembling independent optima typically improves generalization, and linking these modes through continuous low-loss valleys further enhances Bayesian model averaging (BMA). Whether such structure exists in the LoRA space and whether it yields functional diversity missed by local or discrete methods has not been studied. We introduce LoRA-Curve, a segmented Bézier curve parameterization in the LoRA space, with two variants: a free configuration that jointly optimizes all control points, and an anchored configuration that connects independently fine-tuned LoRA optima. We prove pathwise continuity and Lipschitz regularity of the loss along the curve and empirically show, across reasoning and classification benchmarks with Qwen2.5 7B, that linear interpolation encounters loss barriers, while our anchored multi-segment curves connect independent optima through continuous low-loss valleys. Combined with flat-minima perturbations and a Jensen-Shannon divergence regularizer, LoRA-Curve yields measurably higher mutual information of the predictive distribution without sacrificing performance, and links continuous parameter-space traversal to functional diversity.

Existing training approaches for large language models learn a single set of parameters, based on large volumes of data, which is typically heterogeneous, conflicting and often outright contradictory. As a result, the model is forced to compress conflicting goals, and inherent uncertainties into a single, averaged pattern of behaviour. We propose an $α$-Rényi variational framework for learning distributions over post-training parameters, offering an uncertainty-aware alternative to deep ensemble approaches. The resulting variational objective interpolates between classical variational Bayes and predictively oriented posterior learning, balancing between globally plausible individual models against systems of complementary specialists. We identify local stability criteria, demonstrating how model misspecification can make non-degenerate posterior spread locally favourable, manifesting contradictory or conflicting data as epistemic uncertainty. We apply our framework to LLM post-training, learning an ensemble of LoRA adapters attached to a shared, frozen base model, providing a scalable training procedure for both supervised fine-tuning and preference optimisation. Our approach enables training examples to be softly routed across ensemble members, promoting model specialisation and providing actionable uncertainty estimates across different tasks.

Probabilistic forecasting estimates the likelihood of uncertain future events. To improve LLM forecasting, existing methods typically learn from binary outcomes to output verbalized forecasts. However, while aggregated human forecasts contain rich information in both the crowd probability estimate and the degree of agreement among forecasters, how to utilize these signals remains underexplored. To address this, we propose the Beta-Bernoulli Calibrator (BBC), which converts an initial point estimate forecast from any model into a distribution over event likelihood, using supervision from both binary outcomes and human forecasts. BBC models event likelihood $p \sim \text{Beta}(α, β)$ and outcome $y \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p)$, with the mean as the calibrated point forecast and the variance as the epistemic uncertainty. Our results show that BBC generally provides better calibrated and more accurate forecasts than both traditional post-hoc calibration methods and models fine-tuned specifically for forecasting, while remaining lightweight and having good generalization. We also show that the epistemic uncertainty captured by BBC is a more reliable predictor of forecasting error than verbalized confidence.

Large language models (LLMs) are known to abandon their initial stance to conform to user pushback. While prior research largely attributes this behavior to sycophancy learned during reinforcement learning from human feedback, we hypothesize that conformity is also driven by a model's epistemic uncertainty at inference time. In this paper, we introduce MUSE, a two-stage evaluation framework to disentangle the mechanisms driving LLM conformity. Specifically, MUSE maps a model's epistemic uncertainty in responding to a query against its likelihood to yield to user pushback in a subsequent turn. We demonstrate that the mechanisms driving conformity extend beyond sycophancy alone. Specifically, we characterize two distinct factors that jointly drive conformity: sycophantic conformity, where a model aligns with user pushback even with absolute certainty in its initial response, and uncertainty-driven conformity, where a model's likelihood for conformity increases alongside its uncertainty. Furthermore, we conduct ablation studies to demonstrate that both sycophantic conformity and uncertainty-driven conformity grow with 1) the LLM's perceived expertise of the user and 2) the plausibility of the user's suggestions. More broadly, MUSE informs more targeted intervention strategies by distinguishing alignment-induced sycophancy and training-corpora-driven uncertainty.

Over the centuries, probability theory has grown from the calculus of games of chance into a central framework for reasoning under uncertainty. This article interprets that evolution not merely as a mathematical history, but as a transformation of rationality itself. From Pascal and Fermat's combinatorial symmetry to the inductive logic of Bayes and Laplace, from Poisson's statistics of events to Kolmogorov's axiomatic formalization, probability progressively incorporated uncertainty, time, and coherence into scientific judgment. This trajectory reaches a mature epistemological form in modern Bayesian inference, especially in Tarantola's view of probability as a logic of information, where prior knowledge and data are combined coherently. Yet this framework also exposes a limit: probability quantifies uncertainty about well-defined propositions, but does not by itself formalize the vagueness of the concepts used to describe them. The article therefore examines how rationality extends beyond probability. Fuzzy logic is presented as a rigorous language for graded meaning and qualitative judgment, while deep learning is analyzed as a distinct, powerful mode of prediction based on geometric interpolation and optimization rather than explicit inference. By situating probability, fuzzy logic, and deep learning in a common historical and epistemological perspective, the article clarifies their roles and limits. It argues that contemporary scientific rationality cannot be reduced to data-driven performance alone, but requires the explicit articulation of uncertainty, vagueness, and inference.

Reliable uncertainty quantification in continuous-time (CT) representation learning remains nascent, particularly within CT attention literature. We introduce the Neuronal Stochastic Attention Circuit (NSAC), a novel biologically-inspired CT attention architecture that reformulates attention logit computation as the solution of an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck stochastic differential equation modulated by input-dependent, nonlinear interlinked gates derived from repurposed C. elegans Neuronal Circuit Policies (NCPs) wiring mechanism. It induces a Gaussian distribution over logits that propagates principled stochasticity through a logistic-normal distribution over attention weights to yield probabilistic output. A two-term objective function combining Gaussian negative log-likelihood with an epistemic-separation regularizer enforces higher predictive variance under distributional shifts and enables joint quantification of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Theoretically, we provide: (i) state stability bounds; (ii) closed-form guarantees; and (iii) frozen-coefficient error approximation. Empirically, we implement NSAC in a diverse set of learning tasks including: (i) irregular CT function approximation; (ii) multivariate regression; (iii) long-range forecasting; (iv) Industry 4.0; and (v) lane-keeping of autonomous vehicles. We observe that NSAC remains competitive against several baselines in terms of accuracy and produces informative uncertainty estimates while being interpretable at the neuronal cell level.

Recent advances in uncertainty quantification increasingly emphasise the distinction between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning, motivating the need for more unified frameworks. However, despite much progress in producing reliable predictions, existing methods often lack rigorous guarantees when generalising beyond the training domain. We propose a conformalised imprecise inference framework for robust extrapolation, which is model-agnostic and augments predictive models with imprecision and distance awareness. The proposed approach yields imprecise predictions (probability boxes) that remain valid under distributional shift, maintaining coverage while adaptively expanding uncertainty in extrapolation regimes. Experiments on synthetic and benchmark datasets demonstrate improved robustness and reliable coverage compared to standard probabilistic approaches, particularly under limited data.

Epistemic uncertainty is often viewed as a reducible uncertainty that vanishes with increasing data. This perspective implicitly assumes parameter identifiability and equates epistemic uncertainty with predictive variability. In overparametrized neural networks, however, model parameters are typically non-identifiable due to symmetries and redundant representations. As a consequence, substantial parameter uncertainty can persist even when the underlying function is fully identified. In this work, we analyze epistemic uncertainty through the lens of non-identifiability and characterize both discrete and continuous sources of residual uncertainty. Focusing on one-hidden-layer ReLU networks, we thoroughly analyze the resulting posterior structure and validate our theoretical insights through empirical studies.

LLM-based multi-agent systems can fail even when planned actions are executed correctly because agents may misjudge their knowledge when evaluating plan feasibility, a phenomenon we term epistemic miscalibration in planning. Unlike execution errors, epistemic miscalibration is latent during planning, as generated plans can remain self-consistent and executable without observable errors; the miscalibration is also dynamic, as new information can alter feasibility assessments, potentially obscuring past miscalibration signals and causing them to recur over time. To address this, we propose the Epistemic Planning Calibration Agentic Workflow (EPC-AW), which assesses whether plans remain supported under varying information conditions rather than directly verifying feasibility. EPC-AW employs Information-consistency-based Plan Selection, selecting plans whose evaluations are stable across agents, together with Consistency-guided Epistemic State Refinement to adapt calibration over time by leveraging past discrepancies to guide future planning. Experiments show that EPC-AW improves system-level success by an average of 9.75%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are predominantly governed by probabilistic frameworks in which the sum of outcome probabilities is constrained to unity. This architectural limitation, often imposed by Softmax layers, leads to a collapse of uncertainty that makes it difficult to differentiate between epistemic uncertainty, paradox, and vagueness. We present an empirical investigation of the application of Neutrosophic Logic, a framework that treats Truth (T), Indeterminacy (I), and Falsity (F) as three independent dimensions, to model epistemic states in LLMs. We conducted experiments on a family of four OpenAI GPT models across five linguistic phenomena: logical paradoxes, epistemic ignorance, vagueness, ethical contradictions, and future contingencies, under three prompting strategies: neutrosophic, probabilistic, and entropy-derived. Our findings reveal that the neutrosophic approach, by allowing T+I+F > 1, a state we term hyper-truth, provides a richer representation of a model's internal state. In 35% of evaluations, hyper-truth emerged spontaneously, predominantly under ethical contradiction and logical paradox. We demonstrate that this approach preserves truth values in fuzzy contexts and offers a robust method for identifying and quantifying internal model conflict. We conclude that the integration of neutrosophic evaluation layers is a critical step toward more transparent, reliable, and ethically aware AI systems.

Test-time adaptation (TTA) methods improve model performance under distribution shift but lack formal guarantees connecting shift magnitude to prediction reliability. We develop a PAC-Bayesian framework yielding generalization bounds explicitly parameterized by the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) between source and target distributions. Our principal contribution is interpreting MMD-balls around the source distribution as credal sets in Walley's imprecise probability theory, yielding natural epistemic uncertainty quantification. We establish: (i) a PAC-Bayesian bound with an MMD-dependent shift penalty under an RKHS-Lipschitz loss assumption; (ii) a finite-sample version via MMD concentration; (iii) a uniform worst-case risk bound over all distributions in the credal set, with a lower-upper risk decomposition; and (iv) geodesic preservation bounds explaining why kernel-guided adaptation protects local feature geometry. The credal set interpretation separates epistemic from aleatoric uncertainty and provides a principled decision criterion for when adaptation is warranted.

Cooperative perception enabled by Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communication enhances autonomous driving safety by creating a unified environmental representation through shared sensory data. While recent works have advanced multi-agent fusion for improved perception, uncertainty quantification in such cooperative frameworks remains largely unexplored. This paper introduces Hyper-V2X, a hypernetwork-based framework for estimating both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties in V2X-based perception. Specifically, we propose a partial weight generation scheme and V2X context embedding module that conditions a Bayesian hypernetwork on fused multi-agent features to generate weight distributions for stochastic Bird's-Eye-View (BEV) segmentation. Unlike existing deterministic BEV models, Hyper-V2X enables efficient uncertainty estimation with little computation overhead. Our approach is architecture-agnostic, and can be seamlessly integrating with modern cooperative backbones such as CoBEVT. Experiments on the OPV2V benchmark demonstrate that Hyper-V2X provides accurate, well-calibrated uncertainty estimates and improves overall perception reliability. Our code and benchmark are publicly available under an open-source license: https://github.com/abhishekjagtap1/Hyper-V2X

Standard clinical Natural Language Processing (NLP) benchmarks often yield inflated metrics by forcing deterministic classification on ambiguous instances, thereby obscuring the clinical risks of overconfident predictions. To bridge this gap, we propose a risk-aware hybrid selective classification framework, evaluated on early Human Immunodeficiency Virus suspicion identification in Spanish clinical notes. Our dual-verification approach explicitly decouples aleatoric uncertainty through Mondrian conformal prediction and epistemic uncertainty using a Multi-Centroid Mahalanobis Distance veto. Empirical evaluations reveal that standard uncertainty metrics and baseline classifiers are structurally insufficient for safe medical triage, suffering severe coverage collapse when forced to operate under strict reliability constraints. In contrast, by demanding that clinical narratives pass both probabilistic and geometric safeguards, the proposed framework successfully isolates a highly trustworthy operational domain.

Effective medication management in Parkinson's Disease (PD) is challenging due to heterogeneous disease progression, variable patient response, and medication side effects. While AI models can forecast levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) as a measure of medication needs, standard uncertainty quantification often fails to communicate the reliability of these predictions, treating high and low confidence clinical decisions identically. We introduce CASCADE (Calibrated Adaptive Scaling via Conformal And Distributional Estimation), a novel conformal prediction framework that propagates epistemic uncertainty from a screening classifier to adapt downstream predictions. Unlike standard conformal methods that rely on auxiliary residual regression, we leverage epistemic uncertainty from a primary classification task (identifying whether a medication change is needed) to dynamically scale the prediction intervals of a secondary regression task (predicting how much change). By mapping Venn-Abers multi-probabilistic uncertainty directly to non-conformity scores, our framework achieves continuous risk adaptation. We demonstrate that this ``cascade effect'' produces highly efficient intervals for confident patients (38.9% narrower than standard conformal baselines) while automatically expanding intervals to ensure robust coverage for uncertain cases, bridging the gap between discrete clinical decision-making and continuous dose forecasting in PD.

Any system that models the world under finite representational capacity must compress; any compression entails a prior; and the prior is the system's bias. What has not been established is whether uncertainty participates in the dynamics governing future behavior, or merely describes the output distribution without consequence. We introduce a structural distinction between descriptive uncertainty, which does not recursively modulate the system's policy, and regulatory uncertainty, which directly enters the optimization landscape and drives persistent adaptive restructuring. We prove formally that current transformer architectures are confined to descriptive uncertainty at inference. We ground this in thermodynamics via Landauer's principle: for uncertainty to be regulatory, epistemic error must cost real energy; in a decoupled system, hallucinations and correct derivations dissipate identical energy. We test this empirically across three locally-deployed language models (3B, 8B, 70B parameters). Token-level Shannon entropy is statistically invariant across tasks spanning pattern retrieval, causal operator application, and out-of-distribution causal generalization in all three models (all pairwise p >= 0.568; within-model ranges 0.011-0.028 nats), while task accuracy varies substantially across the same conditions (0%-100%). Entropy and accuracy are orthogonal. The decoupling is scale-invariant: larger models achieve higher accuracy but identical entropy flatness. This structural incapacity is not resolvable by additional parameters or training data. Genuine epistemic grounding requires physical coupling between thermodynamic substrate state and information processing cost.

Active learning for continuous regression has lacked an acquisition function that targets epistemic uncertainty when the predictive distribution is multimodal: variance misses modal disagreement, and information-theoretic targets like BALD are designed for discrete outputs. We introduce a Two-Index framework that makes this separation explicit: one stochastic index selects among competing model hypotheses (epistemic source), while a second governs within-hypothesis randomness (aleatoric source). An entropy decomposition within the framework identifies the mutual information between the output and the epistemic index as a principled acquisition objective, and we prove this quantity vanishes as the model is trained on growing datasets, confirming that it captures exactly the uncertainty data can resolve. Because this mutual information is intractable for continuous outputs, we derive the Mutual Information Lower Bound (MI-LB) acquisition function, a closed-form approximation for Mixture Density Network ensembles. On benchmarks featuring multimodal systems, MI-LB matches or beats every baseline evaluated and is the only method to do so consistently -- geometric and Fisher-based baselines compete only when the input space already encodes the multimodality, and collapse otherwise.

Uncertainty quantification has become an important factor in understanding the data representations produced by Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Despite their predictive capabilities being ever useful across industrial workspaces, the inherent uncertainty induced by the nature of the data is a huge mitigating factor to GNN performance. While aleatoric uncertainty is the result of noisy and incomplete stochastic data such as missing edges or over-smoothing, epistemic uncertainty arises from lack of knowledge about a system or model (e.g., a graph's topology or node feature representation), which can be reduced by gathering more data and information. In this paper, we propose an original new framework in which node-level epistemic uncertainty is modelled in a belief function (finite random set) formalism. The resulting Random-Set Graph Neural Networks have a belief-function head predicting a random set over the list of classes, from which both a precise probability prediction and a measure of epistemic uncertainty can be obtained. Extensive experiments on 9 different graph learning datasets, including real-world autonomous driving benchmarks as such Nuscene and ROAD, demonstrate RS-GNN's superior uncertainty quantification capabilities

Automated scientific discovery using large language models relies on identifying genuinely novel solutions. Standard reinforcement learning penalizes high-variance mutations, which leads the policy to prioritize familiar patterns. As a result, the maximum reward plateaus even as the average reward increases. Overcoming this limitation requires a signal that distinguishes unexplored regions from intrinsically difficult problems. This necessitates measuring disagreement across independently adapted weight hypotheses rather than relying on a single network's confidence. UG-TTT addresses this challenge by maintaining a small ensemble of low-rank adapters over a frozen base model. The per-token disagreement, quantified as the mutual information between ensemble predictions and weight hypotheses, isolates epistemic uncertainty and identifies positions where insufficient coverage leads to adapter divergence rather than intrinsic problem difficulty. This measure is incorporated as an exploration bonus into the policy gradient, directing the policy toward positions where persistent adapter disagreement signals low training coverage, the same frontier where genuine discovery is possible. A nuclear norm regularizer ensures the adapters remain distinct from one another, thereby preserving the exploration signal throughout training. Across four scientific discovery benchmarks, UG-TTT increases the maximum reward on three tasks, maintains substantially higher solution diversity, and an ablation study confirms that the regularizer is essential for sustaining this behavior.

Distributed collaborative intelligence (DCI), encompassing edge-to-edge architectures, federated learning, transfer learning, and swarm systems, creates environments in which emergent risk is structurally unavoidable: locally correct decisions by individual agents compose into globally unacceptable behavioral trajectories under uncertainty. Existing approaches such as constrained optimization, safe reinforcement learning, and runtime assurance evaluate acceptability at the level of individual actions rather than across behavioral trajectories, and none addresses the multi-participant, uncertainty-laden nature of DCI deployments. This paper introduces mechanical conscience (MC), a novel concept and simplified mathematical framework that operationalizes trajectory-level normative regulation for both single-agent and distributed intelligent systems. Mechanical conscience is defined as a supervisory filter that minimally corrects a baseline policy's actions to reduce cumulative deviation from a normatively admissible region, while accounting for epistemic uncertainty. We introduce associated constructs, conscience score, mechanical guilt, and resonant dependability, that provide an interpretable vocabulary and computable governance signals for this emerging field. Core theoretical properties are established: admissibility equivalence, existence of optimal regulation, and monotonic deviation reduction. Illustrative results demonstrate that MC-regulated agents maintain trajectory-level normative acceptability where conventional controllers drift outside admissible bounds, and that the framework naturally extends to suppress interaction-induced emergent risk in multi-agent DCI settings.

Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) enables single-pass uncertainty estimation by predicting Dirichlet evidence, but it can remain overconfident and poorly calibrated, and it often fails to represent multi-modal epistemic uncertainty. We introduce Gated Evidential Mixtures (GEM), a family of models that learns an in-model energy signal and uses it to gate evidential outputs end-to-end in a distance-informed manner. GEM-CORE learns a feature-level energy and maps it to a bounded gate that smoothly suppresses evidence when support is low. To capture epistemic multi-modality without multi-pass ensembling, GEM-MIX adds a lightweight mixture of evidential heads with learned routing weights while preserving single-pass inference. Finally, GEM-FI stabilizes mixture allocations via a Fisher-informed regularizer, reducing head collapse and producing smoother boundary uncertainty. Across image classification and OOD detection benchmarks, GEM improves calibration and ID/OOD separation with single-pass inference. On CIFAR-10, GEM-FI vs. DAEDL improves accuracy from 91.11 to 93.75 (+2.64 pp), reduces Brier x100 from 14.27 to 6.81 (-7.46), and also improves misclassification-detection AUPR from 99.08 to 99.94 (+0.86). For epistemic OOD detection, GEM-FI achieves AUPR/AUROC of 92.59/95.09 on CIFAR-10 to SVHN and 90.20/89.06 on CIFAR-10 to CIFAR-100, compared with 85.54/89.30 and 88.19/86.10 for DAEDL.

We propose UAPAR, an Uncertainty-Aware Pedestrian Attribute Recognition framework. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first EDL-based uncertainty-aware framework for pedestrian attribute recognition (PAR). Unlike conventional deterministic methods, which fail to assess prediction reliability on low-quality samples, UAPAR effectively identifies unreliable predictions and thus enhances system robustness in complex real-world scenarios. To achieve this, UAPAR incorporates Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) into a CLIP-based architecture. Specifically, a Region-Aware Evidence Reasoning module employs cross-attention and spatial prior masks to capture fine-grained local features, which are further processed by an evidence head to estimate attribute-wise epistemic uncertainty. To further enhance training robustness, we develop an uncertainty-guided dual-stage curriculum learning strategy to alleviate the adverse effects of severe label noise during training. Extensive experiments on the PA100K, PETA, RAPv1, and RAPv2 datasets demonstrate that UAPAR achieves competitive or superior performance. Furthermore, qualitative results confirm that the proposed framework generates uncertainty estimates that are predictive of challenging or erroneous samples.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) systems face a compounding alignment challenge: not only are learned reward models uncertain about unseen state-action pairs, but the human preference annotations they are trained on are themselves inconsistent, context-dependent, and noisy. Existing approaches address these uncertainty sources in isolation - epistemic uncertainty is used to guide exploration, while preference uncertainty is absorbed during reward model training but discarded during policy optimization. We introduce Uncertainty-Aware Reward Discounting (UARD), a principled framework that jointly models epistemic uncertainty in value estimation via ensemble disagreement and aleatoric uncertainty in human preference annotations via annotator variability, combining these signals through a confidence-adjusted Reliability Filter that adaptively modulates reward weighting during policy optimization. We prove that this dynamic discounting preserves the contraction property of the Bellman operator, guaranteeing convergence to a unique fixed point, and provide an information-theoretic justification grounded in the Information Bottleneck principle. Empirically, UARD reduces reward hacking incidents by up to 93.6% across discrete decision-making and continuous control benchmarks (MuJoCo) compared to nine baselines including DQN, Ensemble-DQN, CQL, CPO, TRPO, SAC, EDAC, SUNRISE, and PPO, while maintaining competitive task performance on well-specified rewards. Under annotation noise ranging from 10% to 30% Gaussian perturbation, UARD retains near-zero safety violations compared to baselines' near-linear degradation. These results demonstrate that treating uncertainty as an active component of the optimization objective - rather than a passive diagnostic signal - provides a principled pathway toward more reliable and aligned RL systems.

Frontier artificial intelligence is reshaping all aspects of society, from economic output or military capability to democratic institutions. The EU is entering this transformation from a position of structural dependence: frontier models originate almost exclusively from the United States or China, the US holds approximately sixteen times the EU's AI supercomputing capacity, and only 15% of global hyperscale data centre capacity resides within EU borders. Although the European Commission has accelerated its policy response, existing initiatives remain fragmented and lack a cohesive vision for securing strategic autonomy across the full frontier AI value chain. Here we propose a unified framework connecting five sovereignty pillars (economic competitiveness, resilience, security and defence, European values, and foreign relations) to a decomposition of the frontier AI stack comprising five layers, 26 components, and 29 sub-components. This framework allows the identification of critical gaps, redundancies, and inter-pillar trade-offs that current EU policy leaves implicit. Our analysis of the AI Gigafactory Initiative illustrates how a sovereignty-centred lens reveals conflicts that narrowly economic framings obscure. Moreover, this framework offers policymakers a structured basis for designing, evaluating, and prioritising frontier AI interventions across multiple dimensions of European strategic autonomy across the 92 initiatives from four major Commission communications we. identify, and beyond.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) predict through human-interpretable concepts, but they typically output point concept probabilities that conflate epistemic uncertainty (reducible model underspecification) with aleatoric uncertainty (irreducible input ambiguity). This makes concept-level uncertainty hard to interpret and, more importantly, hard to act upon. We introduce CREDENCE (Credal Ensemble Concept Estimation), a CBM framework that decomposes concept uncertainty by construction. CREDENCE represents each concept as a credal prediction (a probability interval), derives epistemic uncertainty from disagreement across diverse concept heads, and estimates aleatoric uncertainty via a dedicated ambiguity output trained to match annotator disagreement when available. The resulting signals support prescriptive decisions: automate low-uncertainty cases, prioritize data collection for high-epistemic cases, route high-aleatoric cases to human review, and abstain when both are high. Across several tasks, we show that epistemic uncertainty is positively associated with prediction errors, whereas aleatoric uncertainty closely tracks annotator disagreement, providing guidance beyond error correlation. Our implementation is available at the following link: https://github.com/Tankiit/Credal_Sets/tree/ensemble-credal-cbm

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident yet incorrect responses, and uncertainty quantification is one potential solution to more robust usage. Recent works routinely rely on self-consistency to estimate aleatoric uncertainty (AU), yet this proxy collapses when models are overconfident and produce the same incorrect answer across samples. We analyze this regime and show that cross-model semantic disagreement is higher on incorrect answers precisely when AU is low. Motivated by this, we introduce an epistemic uncertainty (EU) term that operates in the black-box access setting: EU uses only generated text from a small, scale-matched ensemble and is computed as the gap between inter-model and intra-model sequence-semantic similarity. We then define total uncertainty (TU) as the sum of AU and EU. In a comprehensive study across five 7-9B instruction-tuned models and ten long-form tasks, TU improves ranking calibration and selective abstention relative to AU, and EU reliably flags confident failures where AU is low. We further characterize when EU is most useful via agreement and complementarity diagnostics.

This position paper argues that Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems exhibit a factual bias-optimizing for epistemic uncertainty reduction while ignoring the aleatoric uncertainty inherent in opinion-rich content. This misalignment demands a paradigm shift in RAG system design. A survey of 34 major RAG benchmarks reveals that only one addresses opinion synthesis, confirming that the bias is structural and embedded in datasets, retrieval-generation objectives, and evaluation metrics alike. Beyond technical limitations, this bias poses risks to transparent and accountable AI. Namely, echo chamber effects that amplify dominant viewpoints, which can lead to opinion manipulation and under-representation of minority voices. We formalize the problem through the lens of uncertainty quantification, showing that factual queries should minimize posterior entropy while opinion queries must preserve it. We derive a unified objective over coverage, fidelity, and fairness using the Wasserstein distance. As an existence proof, we present Opinion-Aware RAG (O-RAG), an architecture featuring LLM-based opinion extraction and entity-linked opinion metadata. We evaluate it across two domains -- e-commerce seller forums and public hotel reviews. Experiments demonstrate 18-48% reduction in Wasserstein distance to corpus-level sentiment distributions, +26.8% sentiment diversity, and +42.7% entity match rate. Human evaluators preferred opinion-enriched generation 79.2% of the time. We propose a research agenda and argue that as RAG systems increasingly mediate access to information, their ability to represent diverse perspectives is of the essence.

Credal sets, i.e., closed convex sets of probability measures, provide a natural framework to represent aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning. Yet how to quantify these two types of uncertainty for a given credal set, particularly in multiclass classification, remains underexplored. In this paper, we propose a distance-based approach to quantify total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty for credal sets. Concretely, we introduce a family of such measures within the framework of Integral Probability Metrics (IPMs). The resulting quantities admit clear semantic interpretations, satisfy natural theoretical desiderata, and remain computationally tractable for common choices of IPMs. We instantiate the framework with the total variation distance and obtain simple, efficient uncertainty measures for multiclass classification. In the binary case, this choice recovers established uncertainty measures, for which a principled multiclass generalization has so far been missing. Empirical results confirm practical usefulness, with favorable performance at low computational cost.

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.

Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) provide a framework for integrating physical laws with data. However, their application to Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) remains constrained by the limited uncertainty quantification (UQ) capabilities. Most existing PINN-based prognostics approaches are deterministic or account only for epistemic uncertainty, limiting their suitability for risk-aware decision-making. This work introduces a heteroscedastic Bayesian Physics-Informed Neural Network (B-PINN) framework that jointly models epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, yielding full predictive posteriors for spatiotemporal insulation material ageing estimation. The approach integrates Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) with physics-based residual enforcement and prior distributions, enabling probabilistic inference within a physics-informed learning architecture. The framework is evaluated on transformer insulation ageing application, validated with a finite-element thermal model and field measurements from a solar power plant, and benchmarked against deterministic PINNs, dropout-based PINNs (d-PINNs), and alternative B-PINN variants. Results show that the proposed B-PINN provides improved predictive accuracy and better-calibrated uncertainty estimates than competing approaches. A systematic sensitivity study further analyzes the impact of boundary-condition, initial-condition, and residual sampling strategies on accuracy, calibration, and generalization, and the influence of measurement noise on aleatoric uncertainty. Overall, the findings highlight the capability of Bayesian physics-informed learning to support uncertainty-aware prognostics and informed decision-making in transformer asset management by tracking aleatoric and epistemic sources of uncertainty.

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.

Uncertainty quantification is crucial in machine learning, yet most (axiomatic) studies of uncertainty measures focus on classification, leaving a gap in regression settings with limited formal justification and evaluations. In this work, we provide a formal way of representing uncertainty in continuous space, using a general parametric formulation, allowing for tractable analysis and evaluation of uncertainty measures. Within this framework, we propose a set of axioms that enable rigorous assessment of total, aleatoric, and epistemic uncertainty measures. Together, this allows for a theoretical examination of uncertainty measures and their corresponding properties. As a specific example, we compare the widely used entropy- and variance-based measures with respect to established predictive models and analyze their limitations and challenges in uncertainty quantification. Our work provides a principled way to understand and develop uncertainty measures in supervised regression, offering theoretical insights and practical guidelines for reliable uncertainty assessment.