Epistemic Uncertainty

This work investigates uncertainty decomposition and explainability in a deep learning-based framework for gyroscope bias correction. A 1-D Convolutional Neural Network is trained to predict residual angular rate corrections from multi-sensor inputs, including gyroscope and star tracker measurements. The bias corrections are sent to a flight-representative Gyro-Stellar Estimator. The network produces both mean corrections and input-dependent (heteroscedastic) aleatoric uncertainty, while epistemic uncertainty is estimated via an ensemble of independently trained models. The proposed approach is trained under nominal conditions and evaluated in both nominal and structured perturbations that include additive and temporally correlated noise. Gradient-based attribution methods are applied to both the correction and uncertainty outputs, enabling a decomposition of the evidence that drives state updates and uncertainty estimates. By aggregating attribution patterns across rotational axes and regimes, we reveal axis-specific behaviors and characterize how structured perturbations influence the collaboration between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Uncertainty analysis shows that aleatoric uncertainty increases with perturbation intensity, but the distributions overlap and the calibration is not consistent across regimes. On the other hand, epistemic uncertainty gives a clear signal that gets clearer as the distributional shift happens, showing that the models disagree more. These results show that aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty work well together and that epistemic uncertainty is better at distinguishing between nominal and perturbed operating conditions. The results provide insight into the behavior of hybrid learning-based state estimation components and motivate the use of uncertainty for downstream monitoring and fault detection.

Deep ensembles provide the most reliable uncertainty estimates in deep learning, but their cost grows linearly with the number of members. Implicit ensembles lower this cost by sharing a single backbone across members. Member diversity is a primary determinant of ensemble quality, yet no implicit ensemble can shape it during training; existing methods fix it at initialisation or build it into the architecture. We introduce $σ$N-Ens, a normalisation-based implicit ensemble that treats each member as a task in a multi-task architecture and modulates the shared backbone through sigmoid-bounded scalers. We also introduce a softmax-temperature regulariser, which shapes the equilibrium level of sharing between members and traces the accuracy-calibration frontier. Because only normalisation layers are replicated, the mechanism can wrap convolutional and transformer backbones alike, also allowing pretrained models to be adapted through a short fine-tune. We frame the epistemic uncertainty such an ensemble expresses as modulation uncertainty, and explain why its calibration holds under input corruption, and why its out-of-distribution detection is weaker. Our method is evaluated across ResNets and transformers on CIFAR-10/100, ImageNet and SST-2. $σ$N-Ens matches or outperforms deep ensembles at a fraction of their parameter cost, scales with ensemble size where partitioning methods collapse, and maintains calibration under distribution shift.

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.

Existing approaches to multi-agent belief combination have established mature foundations for combining uncertain beliefs under common assumptions: consensus methods use iterative averaging, logic-based methods resolve conflicting knowledge bases, and epistemic logic analyzes agents' information states. Typically, these approaches assume that the structure determining what each agent can represent remains fixed. However, in many scenarios, agents gain or lose observational capacity during execution, and what was once admissible may become structurally impossible. This paper presents a formal framework for handling such runtime changes in epistemic partitions over continuous belief profiles. A hybrid approach exploits the advantages of answer set programming in elaboration tolerance, declarative integrity constraints, and explanations, with the numerical flexibility of Python. The framework applies to domains where agents operate at heterogeneous and possibly changing levels of resolution, and provides formal guarantees of admissibility preservation under refinement, unique mass-preserving repair under coarsening, and explanation completeness. Evaluation across 100 randomly generated topology changes confirms complete violation detection and explanation coverage.

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.

Estimating the apparent age of individuals from facial images is challenging due to the subjective nature of perception and the inherent variability of the data. We investigate the role of uncertainty estimation, attributing uncertainty jointly to a lack of knowledge (epistemic) or inherent noise/chance (aleatoric). Leveraging the APPA-REAL dataset, we train Bayesian Neural Networks on datasets of varying sizes using three BNN approximations: MC-DropConnect, Flipout, and Deep Ensembles using supervision on human aleatoric uncertainty available in the APPA-REAL dataset. Each model outputs both the predicted apparent age and the amount of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Our results confirm the hypothesis that the inherent aleatoric uncertainty remains stable across dataset sizes, while epistemic uncertainty increases as training data decreases. These findings demonstrate that different sources of uncertainty can be quantified in face age estimation.

We present a novel viewpoint for uncertainty quantification. Uncertainty measures are not primitives, in need of axioms and argumentation, but instead consequences, of higher-level modelling decisions. We show how epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty measures can be derived via decomposition of a subjective risk, based on a strictly proper loss. Reverse cross entropy provides a prominent example, where decomposition recovers the classic information-theoretic uncertainty terms. The same approach recovers numerous measures previously proposed across the UQ literature, providing them a common theoretical foundation. This suggests a new approach to UQ: given a modelling scenario and strictly proper loss, the corresponding epistemic and aleatoric terms are induced by the subjective-risk decomposition. We then extend our view to learning theory: we introduce and analyse subjective risk analogues of excess risk, approximation error and estimation error, and identify the connections to UQ. We consider this a first step towards a full learning-theoretic framework for uncertainty quantification.

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.

Retrieval-augmented generation grounds large language models in external evidence, but most pipelines still treat retrieved passages as deterministic and mutually consistent context. In open information environments, retrieved sources may disagree because of temporal drift, source error, ambiguity, or genuine uncertainty. This paper introduces ERAG, an uncertainty-aware RAG framework that converts retrieved chunks into probabilistic evidence before generation. A lightweight evaluator extracts candidate claims and maps chunk-level support to Dirichlet evidence. A conflict-preserving Dempster-Shafer fusion rule then transfers unresolved disagreement into epistemic uncertainty rather than normalizing it away. The generator is routed to direct answering, conflict-aware answering, or abstention according to the fused uncertainty score. Experiments on CRAG, ConflictQA, and MuSiQue show that ERAG remains competitive with the strongest matched baseline on standard question answering while improving behavior under conflict. On the CRAG ambiguous subset, hallucination decreases from 45.3% for Corrective RAG to a human-calibrated estimate of 34.8%, conflict resolution increases from 35.2% to 51.2%, and expected calibration error improves to 0.122. These results suggest that evidential modeling is a practical mechanism for trustworthy information processing in foundation-model-based retrieval systems.

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.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful approach in financial trading, enabling agents to learn optimal strategies through direct market interaction. However, financial markets are highly uncertain, with price fluctuations driven by stochastic volatility, model limitations, and regime shifts. Traditional RL models struggle in dynamic environments, often failing to adapt to sudden market disruptions, leading to suboptimal trading decisions. To address this challenge, we propose an uncertainty-aware RL framework that integrates distributional, epistemic, and aleatoric uncertainty estimations. Our approach enhances uncertainty estimation using SHAP-weighted reconstruction uncertainty, MC Dropout, and an LSTM-based technical indicator consensus mechanism. Experimental results on five major U.S. stock indices demonstrate that RL agents equipped with uncertainty estimation significantly outperform traditional models in return and risk management. This study advances uncertainty estimation in RL-based financial trading, with future research extending its application to other asset classes and alternative RL architectures for greater adaptability.

Emotion-sensing AI is rapidly becoming embedded in vehicles, home appliances, dialogue agents, and social infrastructure, giving rise to a sphere in which emotion is no longer confined to individual experience but is instead observed and computed at a societal scale, a domain we term the Affectosphere. Yet a central normative question in this domain has remained underexplored: who has the final authority to determine the meaning of one's own emotion? This study addresses the question from the epistemological side of measurement's structural limits. We define a meaning distribution as the distribution of labels assigned by annotators drawn from a population under a fixed annotation protocol, and decompose its uncertainty into reducible and irreducible components. We then demonstrate that, while emotion AI can assign high-confidence point labels and discriminate real differences at an aggregate level, the irreducible component of the meaning distribution for individual instances cannot be estimated with adequate coverage under realistic annotator counts, a systematic divergence we term the epistemic gap. The key finding is that high device confidence does not constitute evidence that irrecoverable meaning has been recovered. From this epistemic gap, together with an explicitly stated normative premise, namely that the output of a system which cannot recover a quantity in principle must not be treated as its authoritative determination, we derive the norm that the final interpretive authority over the meaning of one's emotion is procedurally reserved for the experiencing subject, the norm of affective sovereignty. These results suggest that the design, evaluation, and regulation of emotion AI should place explicit allocation of interpretive authority, rather than accuracy maximisation, at their core.

Can a statistically significant, large-effect-size finding in computational social science be entirely an artifact of the measurement instrument? We present a case where the answer appears to be yes. Analyzing 85 interviews across four public intellectuals (2016--2026), we find a robust negative-affect/emphatic-certainty lexical co-occurrence pattern under keyword-based scoring ($r = 0.72$--$0.93$, $p < 0.01$ for all four speakers). Replacing keyword counting with LLM-based zero-shot semantic classification on the complete diarized corpus (32,625 sentences) dramatically reduces this correlation: Dalio's $r = 0.851$ drops to $r = 0.206$, with two speakers showing negative $r(\text{neg}, \text{emphatic})$ and one showing null. In contrast, the LLM reveals a strong negative-hedging coupling across speakers -- Rogoff's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.875$ ($p = 0.001$) and Zeihan's $r(\text{neg}, \text{hedged}) = 0.722$ ($p = 0.008$) -- consistent with the conventional expectation that pessimistic discourse attracts hedging, not certainty. Sentence-level error analysis traces this discrepancy to three structural failure modes in keyword lexicons -- syntactic blindness, polysemy blindness, and categorical absence -- illustrated through cases where keyword counting inverts semantic meaning (e.g., ''never absolutely totally confident'' scored as high-certainty). We argue that keyword lexicons measure a universal lexical co-occurrence tendency -- negative discourse naturally attracts emphatic vocabulary -- that is orthogonal to, and can systematically invert, rhetorical stance. Treating keyword counts as measurements of epistemic certainty is a category error: a finding that appears to be about a speaker's psychology may be entirely about the counting of words.

Facial expression recognition (FER) is inherently ambiguous: human annotators frequently disagree, and models deployed in real environments face distribution shift. Crucially, these two conditions demand different downstream actions, as ambiguous in-distribution faces should be reported with their ambiguity whereas out-of-distribution inputs should be rejected. However, a single uncertainty score conflates the two. In this study, uncertainty decomposition into aleatoric and epistemic components for FER is investigated, and Uncertainty-Aware Routing (UAR), an inference-time routing mechanism that exploits the separation, is introduced. Specifically, aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties are obtained from a Deep Ensemble of fully fine-tuned DINOv2 models and are each validated against an independent external signal: aleatoric against human annotator disagreement, and epistemic against distribution shift induced by image corruptions. The proposed dual-validation protocol reveals that aleatoric recovers annotator disagreement with Spearman correlation 0.66 (95% CI: 0.64-0.68), and epistemic detects corruption-induced shifts, achieving average AUROC of 0.699 at the highest corruption severity. UAR retains approximately 1.8 times more ambiguous in-distribution faces than single-uncertainty routing at a matched out-of-distribution rejection rate. A strong label-distribution-learning baseline achieves comparable disagreement recovery but cannot separate ambiguity from shift and therefore cannot route, establishing that the value of decomposition lies in the separation enabling interpretable and differentiated action selection.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong performance in robotic manipulation, but reliable uncertainty quantification remains challenging, particularly under distribution shift. Unlike autoregressive policies, many modern VLA models generate continuous actions through regression or flow-based generation, where explicit predictive probabilities are unavailable. Moreover, stochastic action sampling primarily captures action-generation variability under a fixed model, while failure detection under distribution shift can benefit from capturing uncertainty in the model itself. Motivated by Bayesian perspectives on local model variations, we propose perturbation-based failure detection (PFD), a training-free framework for estimating epistemic uncertainty in VLA models through low-rank weight perturbations. Specifically, we inject random low-rank perturbations into selected transformer weight matrices and estimate epistemic uncertainty from disagreement across perturbed action predictions. Experiments on LIBERO-PRO show that PFD achieves the highest average AUROC and balanced accuracy among the evaluated methods while consistently outperforming stochastic action sampling across distribution shifts. Real-world robot experiments further demonstrate that PFD provides a competitive failure-detection signal under an unseen object shift.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to structured clinical data, yet whether they can recognize the limits of their own knowledge on such tasks remains unexplored. We study this question through the lens of cross-model attribution divergence with the goal of reducing epistemic uncertainty for structured tasks, comparing Qwen 2.5 7B and XGBoost on a prediction task via attribution divergence analysis. We report four findings. First, LLM verbalized confidence is epistemically vacuous, it outputs a near-constant (0.856-0.937) regardless of whether accuracy is 49% or 75.3%, tracking prompt format rather than prediction quality. Second, the LLM exhibits an inverse difficulty effect: accuracy drops to 64.8% when XGBoost is 99% correct, but matches XGBoost (73.8% vs. 73.1%) when it is moderately uncertain. Third, few-shot examples and SHAP-derived feature evidence are orthogonal, super-additive interventions: they reduce the Attribution Disagreement Score (ADS) from 1.54 to 0.38 and improve accuracy from 49% to 75.3% without training. Fourth, a cross-model calibrator that determined LLM reliability using attribution divergence signals reduces expected calibration error from 0.254 to 0.080, replacing uninformative verbalized confidence with patient-specific reliability estimates, without accessing model internals or requiring repeated inference. We frame these findings as a cold start problem for LLMs on structured data and outline a path toward genuine epistemic self-awareness.

Quantifying the influence of hybrid aleatory and epistemic uncertainties on high-dimensional system responses remains a major challenge in global sensitivity analysis (GSA). Existing Hilbert--Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC)-based approaches are primarily restricted to single-output settings and lack a rigorous decomposition of heterogeneous uncertainty sources and their interactions. To address this limitation, a novel double-space tensor-product RKHS framework is proposed for sensitivity analysis under hybrid uncertainty. By constructing factorized kernels over both the latent input space and the multidimensional output space, a concurrent double Möbius inversion is derived to orthogonally decompose the global dependence measure into pure aleatory effects, pure epistemic effects, and their interaction contributions. The resulting dimension-wise sensitivity indices preserve the uncertainty attribution structure across all output dimensions. To satisfy the independence assumptions required by the decomposition, an auxiliary-variable representation based on the inverse probability integral transform is introduced, enabling the treatment of hierarchical uncertainties and Copula-induced correlations within a unified latent space. A fully vectorized single-loop implementation is further developed to avoid the computational burden of nested Monte Carlo simulation. Statistical significance and estimation uncertainty are quantified through permutation testing and Bootstrap confidence intervals. Numerical studies on a modified multi-output Ishigami function and an aerodynamic pressure-field problem demonstrate the accuracy, scalability, and practical applicability of the proposed framework.

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.

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.

Deploying reinforcement learning in safety critical domains, from autonomous vehicles to medical decision support, is constrained by failures arising when systems encounter unfamiliar conditions. We argue that the fundamental bottleneck is not individual challenges like changing dynamics or incomplete observations, but their synergistic interaction, which we term the Epistemic Trap: agents cannot estimate their state without knowing system dynamics, nor learn dynamics without accurate state information. Proof-of-concept experiments in simulated locomotion reveal that combining these uncertainties causes failures far worse than either challenge alone, a 77% observed degradation against the 46% additive prediction, demonstrating that compounding failure modes can emerge and, when they do, far exceed what additive reasoning would predict. Conventional approaches typically adopt a passive epistemic stance that cannot resolve this coupled uncertainty. We propose reframing safety as an information problem. We introduce an Adaptive Safety Architecture built around three contributions. First, the Compound Uncertainty Coefficient ($κ$), a mutual-information based metric that quantifies how tightly state and dynamics uncertainties are coupled. Second, information-seeking policies governed by a MaxInfoRL objective that actively probe system dynamics rather than waiting for the environment to reveal itself passively. Third, regime adaptive safety constraints that tighten automatically as epistemic coupling rises. Together, these constitute a paradigm shift from passive robustness to active perception, offering a principled path toward decision making systems that operate under uncertainty, recognize their own ignorance, and act strategically to resolve it.

Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) has emerged as an efficient, sampling-free strategy for uncertainty estimation. A series of EDL variants have been proposed to address specific limitations of the original framework, achieving notable success. However, the underlying theoretical structure of EDL and the relationships among these variants have received limited systematic investigation. In this work, we establish a principled theoretical foundation for EDL by interpreting it within a generalized Bayesian framework that includes prior specification, posterior update, and training objective. We further characterize evidential uncertainty from a Bayesian distributional uncertainty viewpoint, established via asymptotic analysis. Building on this perspective, we further propose Generalized Evidential Deep Learning (GEDL), a unified and extensible framework that explicitly disentangles the roles of individual components and systematically relates GEDL to existing variants. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GEDL yields comparable results on classification, uncertainty estimation and OOD detections, with theoretical grounding.

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.

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.

While deep ensembles are widely considered to be the default method for uncertainty quantification in deep learning, their effectiveness for graph-structured data is often simply assumed based on successes in domains like computer vision. We investigate standard deep ensembles specifically for message-passing graph neural networks. Benchmarking across eight datasets representing varied tasks and complexities, we reveal that ensembles provide only marginal improvement over a single model. These marginal gains stem primarily from averaging out optimization noise in point predictions rather than from meaningfully better uncertainty estimates. Through an aleatoric-epistemic decomposition, we identify epistemic collapse: independently trained networks consistently converge to overly similar predictions. Because disagreement is the fundamental mechanism through which ensembles capture epistemic uncertainty, this lack of diversity neutralizes their key advantage. Towards explaining this phenomenon, we derive a bound on epistemic variance in terms of the graph topology and Dirichlet energy budget, linking epistemic collapse to the smoothing bias of message passing. Our results suggest that deep ensemble success does not seamlessly transfer to graph machine learning.

Accurate wind power forecasting requires reliable uncertainty quantification, yet most existing methods report a single predictive uncertainty that conflates epistemic and aleatoric sources. This paper applies the law of total variance to the joint setting of heteroscedastic neural network regression and Bayesian posterior approximation, deriving an explicit decomposition of total uncertainty (TU) into aleatoric (AU) and epistemic (EU) components. The resulting estimators are compatible with standard posterior-approximation methods and with $β$-NLL training to regulate the mean--variance learning trade-off. A wind power--specific evaluation framework is proposed to validate disentanglement without access to ground-truth uncertainty labels, comprising three modules: controlled synthetic experiments to verify responses to heteroscedastic noise and distribution shift; data-property--driven validation on a real-world wind turbine SCADA dataset; and dataset-size scaling experiments to examine the predicted asymptotic behavior of EU. Across synthetic and real-world experiments, the decomposed AU and EU components respond in theoretically consistent directions to noise structure, distributional shift, and training-scale variation, supporting the theoretical consistency and operational utility of the proposed decomposition and evaluation protocol.