arxiv: 2605.10378 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 📊 stat.ML · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.GA· hep-ex· hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Uncertainty in Physics and AI: Taxonomy, Quantification, and Validation

Manuel Hau{\ss}mann, Maria Ubiali, Ramon Winterhalder

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📊 stat.ML astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAhep-exhep-ph

keywords uncertainty quantificationmachine learningphysicstaxonomyBayesian inferencefrequentist statisticscalibrationvalidation

0 comments

The pith

A unified taxonomy organizes uncertainty types and clarifies their meaning for machine learning models in physics across frequentist and Bayesian views.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper supplies a structured overview of uncertainty quantification when machine learning is applied to physics problems. It presents one taxonomy that groups different uncertainties and spells out what predictive uncertainties and inference uncertainties represent under frequentist and Bayesian statistics. The authors review validation methods such as coverage checks, calibration tests, bias tests, and proper scoring rules, then demonstrate them on basic regression and classification cases. A sympathetic reader would care because physics results depend on trustworthy probability statements, and unclear uncertainty language makes it difficult to judge when an AI output can be used for discovery.

Core claim

The paper claims that a unified taxonomy of uncertainty provides clearer interpretations of predictive and inference uncertainties in both frequentist and Bayesian frameworks, supported by principled validation tools including coverage, calibration, bias tests, and proper scoring rules that are illustrated through simple regression and classification examples.

What carries the argument

The unified taxonomy of uncertainty, which categorizes uncertainty sources and aligns the meanings of predictive and inference uncertainties between frequentist and Bayesian approaches.

If this is right

Validation procedures such as coverage and calibration become applicable in a consistent manner across statistical frameworks.
Basic regression and classification examples show how the taxonomy sharpens understanding of uncertainty in practice.
Reliable probabilistic statements from machine learning models become easier to obtain for physics discoveries.
Machine learning outputs in physics gain trustworthiness when uncertainties are quantified and checked with the listed tools.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Researchers at the physics-AI boundary could use the taxonomy as a shared reference when reporting results.
The same structure might be tested on high-dimensional physics simulations to check whether it reduces communication errors between teams.
Similar taxonomies could be developed for uncertainty in other data-driven sciences such as astronomy or materials discovery.
Training curricula for physicists learning machine learning might incorporate the taxonomy to build clearer intuition about model outputs.

Load-bearing premise

A single unified taxonomy can clarify interpretations across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks without oversimplifying important technical differences between them.

What would settle it

A concrete physics machine-learning task where applying the taxonomy produces inconsistent or misleading uncertainty assessments compared with separate frequentist and Bayesian analyses on the same data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10378 by Manuel Hau{\ss}mann, Maria Ubiali, Ramon Winterhalder.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Bernstein-von Mises convergence visualization. We assume observations coming from a Bernoulli distribution over {0, 1} with p = P(X = 1) = 0.35 (vertical black dashed line in each plot), and a Beta prior over p, denoted as Beta(2, 2), whose density is shown in the upper-left plot. For N ∈ {1, 10, 50, 10 000} samples, with k instances where class 1 was sampled, we visualize the analytical posterior density… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Toy regression example comparing four uncertainty quantification meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Validation diagnostics for the toy regression example. Upper row: diagnos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Binary classification example comparing five approaches. Each plot shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Reliable uncertainty quantification is essential for the use of machine learning in physics, where scientific discoveries depend on validated probabilistic statements. We provide a structured overview of uncertainty quantification in ML for physics, introducing a unified taxonomy of uncertainty and clarifying the interpretation of predictive and inference uncertainties across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks. We discuss principled validation tools, including coverage, calibration, bias tests, and proper scoring rules, and illustrate them with simple regression and classification examples.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A clear but not groundbreaking overview that organizes uncertainty ideas for ML in physics without resolving framework differences.

read the letter

This paper is mainly a synthesis that pulls together existing concepts on uncertainty in machine learning for physics applications. It lays out a taxonomy separating things like epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, then walks through how predictive and inference uncertainties look under frequentist versus Bayesian approaches. The examples are simple regression and classification cases that show coverage checks, calibration plots, and scoring rules in action. That structure makes it easy to see the validation options in one place, which is the main practical value here. The authors stick to exposition rather than new derivations or experiments, so the claims rest on how well the organization holds up against the cited literature. The unified taxonomy is the central move, but it risks flattening real distinctions: frequentist coverage guarantees under repeated sampling do not map directly onto Bayesian posterior probabilities, and the paper does not appear to supply separate formal statements or counter-examples that keep those validation requirements distinct. For physics work where misread uncertainties can affect conclusions about new particles or model parameters, that gap matters. The citation pattern looks standard for a review, drawing on established UQ papers without obvious omissions in the core areas. No free parameters or invented entities show up, which fits the overview style. This is the kind of reference a grad student or postdoc entering ML-physics might keep on hand for quick orientation. It does not break new ground on open questions, so I would not cite it as a primary source in my own papers. Still, the community benefits from having the material collected and illustrated this way. I would send it to peer review so referees can check whether the taxonomy actually preserves the separate meanings or needs tightening in the frequentist-Bayesian sections.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper provides a structured overview of uncertainty quantification in machine learning for physics. It introduces a unified taxonomy of uncertainty types and seeks to clarify the interpretation of predictive and inference uncertainties across frequentist and Bayesian frameworks. The manuscript discusses principled validation tools such as coverage, calibration, bias tests, and proper scoring rules, and illustrates the concepts with simple regression and classification examples.

Significance. If the unified taxonomy successfully organizes concepts without erasing key distinctions, the paper could serve as a helpful reference bridging ML and physics communities, where validated uncertainty statements are critical for scientific conclusions. The focus on validation tools and use of simple illustrative examples are strengths that enhance accessibility and practical utility for readers applying these ideas.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'simple regression and classification examples' would be more useful if it indicated the specific sections or figures where these appear, to aid navigation in an overview paper.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive review and recommendation to accept. We are pleased that the unified taxonomy, clarification of predictive and inference uncertainties, and emphasis on validation tools such as coverage, calibration, and proper scoring rules were viewed as strengths that enhance accessibility for the ML and physics communities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: review paper with conceptual taxonomy and no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

This is a review and overview paper that introduces a unified taxonomy of uncertainty and discusses validation tools for ML in physics. It contains no derivations, equations, predictions, or fitted parameters that could reduce to self-definitions or inputs by construction. The central claims are clarifications of existing concepts across frameworks, illustrated with simple examples, without any load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes that collapse the argument. The paper is self-contained as a synthesis of established ideas, with no steps that qualify as circular under the specified patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and does not introduce new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; it organizes and discusses standard concepts from statistics and machine learning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5377 in / 1043 out tokens · 55354 ms · 2026-05-12T04:00:11.826981+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Trotta, Contemporary Physics 49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

[2]R. Trotta,Bayes in the sky: Bayesian inference and model selection in cosmology, Contemp. Phys.49(2008) 71, arXiv:0803.4089[astro-ph]. [3]D. W . Hogg, J. Bovy , and D. Lang,Data analysis recipes: Fitting a model to data, arXiv:1008.4686[astro-ph.IM]. [4]G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells,Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new...

work page arXiv 2008
[2]

arXiv:1703.04977[cs.CV]. [7]J. Gawlikowski, C. Tassi, and M. e. a. Ali,A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks, Artif Intell Rev 56(Suppl 1)(2023) 1513–1589, arXiv:2107.03342[cs.LG]. [8]F . Fakour, A. Mosleh, and R. Ramezani,A structured review of literature on uncertainty in machine learning & deep learning, arXiv:2406.00332[cs.LG]. [9]N. Stahl, ...

work page arXiv 2023
[3]

243–297. [11]T . Siddique, M. S. Mahmud, A. M. Keesee, C. M. Ngwira, and H. Connor,A survey of uncertainty quantification in machine learning for space weather prediction, Geosciences 12(2022) 1, . [12]B. Kompa, J. Snoek, and A. L. Beam,Second opinion needed: communicating uncertainty in medical machine learning, npj Digital Medicine4(2021) 1,

work page 2022
[4]

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-00367-3. [13]T . J. Loftus, B. Shickel, M. M. Ruppert, J. A. Balch, T . Ozrazgat-Baslanti, P . J. Tighe, P . A. Efron, W . R. Hogan, P . Rashidi, G. R. Upchurch, Jr., and A. Bihorac, Uncertainty-aware deep learning in healthcare: A scoping review, PLOS Digital Health1 (08,

work page doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00367-3
[5]

1.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000085. [14]B. Araújo, J. F . Teixeira, J. Fonseca, R. Cerqueira, and S. C. Beco,The road to safety: A review of uncertainty and applications to autonomous driving perception, Entropy26 (2024) 8, .https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/26/8/634. [15]C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y. Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger,On calibration of modern ne...

work page doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000085 2024
[6]

On calibration of modern neural networks,

arXiv:1706.04599[cs.LG]. 34 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission [16]S. Forte, L. Garrido, J. I. Latorre, and A. Piccione,Neural network parametrization of deep inelastic structure functions, JHEP05(2002) 062, arXiv:hep-ph/0204232. [17]NNPDF , R. D. Ball, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, J. I. Latorre, A. Piccione, J. Rojo, and M. Ubiali,A De...

work page arXiv 2002
[7]

003, arXiv:2104.04543[hep-ph]. [25]A. Ghosh and B. Nachman,A cautionary tale of decorrelating theory uncertainties, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 1, 46, arXiv:2109.08159[hep-ph]. [26]A. Ghosh, B. Nachman, and D. Whiteson,Uncertainty-aware machine learning for high energy physics, Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 5, 056026, arXiv:2105.08742 [physics.data-an]. [27]NNPDF , R...

work page arXiv 2022
[8]

arXiv:2208.03284[hep-ex]. [31]A. Butter, T . Heimel, T . Martini, S. Peitzsch, and T . Plehn,Two invertible networks for the matrix element method, SciPost Phys.15(2023) 3, 094, arXiv:2210.00019[hep-ph]. 35 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission [32]C. Fanelli and J. Giroux,ELUQuant: event-level uncertainty quantification in deep inelastic scatterin...

work page arXiv 2023
[9]

37 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission [62]S.-T

arXiv:2509.25128[astro-ph.IM]. 37 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission [62]S.-T . Liu, T .-Y. Sun, Y.-X. Wang, Y.-X. Zhang, S.-J. Jin, J.-F . Zhang, and X. Zhang, Assessing the robustness of amortized simulation-based inference to transient noise in gravitational-wave ringdowns, arXiv:2603.12032[gr-qc]. [63]A. Walls, J. Barry , D. Mohan, and A. M....

work page arXiv 2026
[10]

A tutorial on conformal prediction, 2007

[68]G. Shafer and V . Vovk,A tutorial on conformal prediction, arXiv:0706.3188[cs.LG]. [69]B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell,Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles, arXiv:1612.01474[stat.ML]. [70]T . Gneiting and A. E. Raftery ,Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation, Journal of the Amer...

work page arXiv 2007
[11]

Grosso, R

[71]G. Grosso, R. Winterhalder, L. Brenner, L. Lyons, and T . Plehn,VERaiPHY – Validation & Evaluation for Robust AI in PHYsics, to appear (2026) , arXiv:2026.xxxxx. [72]O. Amram, M. Letizia, and M. Kuusela,Model-Agnostic Signal Discovery with Machine Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice, to appear (2026) , arXiv:2026.xxxxx. [73]A. Der K...

work page 2026
[12]

Hüllermeier and W

[74]E. Hüllermeier and W . Waegeman,Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods, Machine Learning110(2021) 457, arXiv:1910.09457[cs.LG]. [75]C. Gruber, P . O. Schenk, M. Schierholz, F . Kreuter, and G. Kauermann,Sources of uncertainty in supervised machine learning – a statisticians’ view, arXiv:2305.16...

work page arXiv 2021
[13]

38 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission [80]A. N. Angelopoulos and S. Bates,Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning16(2023) 4, , arXiv:2107.07511 [cs.LG]. [81]L. G. Valiant,A theory of the learnable, Communications of the ACM27(1984) 11,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[14]

Kullback and R

[83]S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler,On information and sufficiency, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics22(1951) 1,

work page 1951
[15]

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2236703. [84]P . Germain, F . Bach, A. Lacoste, and S. Lacoste-Julien,PAC-Bayesian theory meets Bayesian inference, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

work page arXiv
[16]

Alquier,User-friendly introduction to pac-bayes bounds, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning17(2024) 2, 174–303

[85]P . Alquier,User-friendly introduction to pac-bayes bounds, Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning17(2024) 2, 174–303. [86]A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin,Bayesian data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC,

work page 2024
[17]

[91]D. T . Ulmer, C. Hardmeier, and J. Frellsen,Prior and posterior networks: A survey on evidential deep learning methods for uncertainty estimation, Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023) , arXiv:2110.03051[cs.LG]. [92]A. W . Van der Vaart,Asymptotic statistics, vol

work page arXiv 2023
[18]

A conceptual introduction to hamiltonian monte carlo, 2018

[93]M. Betancourt,A conceptual introduction to hamiltonian monte carlo, arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.02434 (2017) . [94]T . Chen, E. Fox, and C. Guestrin,Stochastic gradient hamiltonian monte carlo, in International conference on machine learning, PMLR

work page arXiv 2017
[19]

[95]D. M. Blei, A. Kucukelbir, and J. D. McAuliffe,Variational inference: A review for statisticians, Journal of the American statistical Association112(2017) 518,

work page 2017
[20]

[97]D. J. MacKay ,Bayesian interpolation, Neural computation4(1992) 3,

work page 1992
[21]

Generalized variational inference: Three arguments for deriving new posteriors.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02063, 2019

[98]E. Daxberger, A. Kristiadi, A. Immer, R. Eschenhagen, M. Bauer, and P . Hennig,Laplace redux-effortless bayesian deep learning, Advances in neural information processing systems34(2021) 20089. 39 SciPost Physics Community Reports Submission [99]J. Knoblauch, J. Jewson, and T . Damoulas,An optimization-centric view on bayes’ rule: Reviewing and general...

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

arXiv:1903.05779[cs.LG]. [107]T . G. Rudner, Z. Chen, Y. W . Teh, and Y. Gal,Tractable function-space variational inference in bayesian neural networks, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35(2022) 22686, arXiv:2312.17199[stat.ML]. [108]Y. Gal and Z. Ghahramani,Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learni...

work page arXiv 1903
[23]

arXiv:2402.00809[cs.LG]. [110]M. Sensoy , L. Kaplan, and M. Kandemir,Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty, arXiv:1806.01768[cs.LG]. [111]A. Amini, W . Schwarting, A. Soleimany , and D. Rus,Deep evidential regression, arXiv:1910.02600[cs.LG]. [112]N. Meinert and A. Lavin,Multivariate deep evidential regression, arXiv:2104.06135 [...

work page arXiv 1910
[24]

Frate, K

[120]M. Frate, K. Cranmer, S. Kalia, A. Vandenberg-Rodes, and D. Whiteson,Modeling Smooth Backgrounds and Generic Localized Signals with Gaussian Processes, arXiv:1709.05681[physics.data-an]. [121]J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Turnwald, J. M. Urban, N. Wink, and S. Zafeiropoulos,Reconstructing QCD spectral functions with Gaussian pr...

work page arXiv 2022
[25]

arXiv:1710.07283 [stat.ML]. [128]N. Houlsby , F . Huszár, Z. Ghahramani, and M. Lengyel,Bayesian active learning for classification and preference learning, arXiv:1112.5745[stat.ML]. [129]W . Chen, B. Li, R. Zhang, and Y. Li,Bayesian computation in deep learning, arXiv:2502.18300[cs.LG]. [130]S. Diefenbacher, G. Kasieczka, and S. Palacios Schweitzer,Gener...

work page arXiv 2026
[26]

http://github.com/jax-ml/jax. [134]P . Kidger and C. Garcia,Equinox: neural networks in JAX via callable PyTrees and filtered transformations, Differentiable Programming workshop at Neural Information Processing Systems 2021 (2021) , arXiv:2111.00254[cs.LG]. [135]A. Cabezas, A. Corenflos, J. Lao, and R. Louf,Blackjax: Composable Bayesian inference in JAX,...

work page arXiv 2021