REVIEW 3 cited by
Sources of Uncertainty in Supervised Machine Learning -- A Statisticians' View
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Supervised machine learning and predictive models have achieved an impressive standard today, enabling us to answer questions that were inconceivable a few years ago. Besides these successes, it becomes clear, that beyond pure prediction, which is the primary strength of most supervised machine learning algorithms, the quantification of uncertainty is relevant and necessary as well. However, before quantification is possible, types and sources of uncertainty need to be defined precisely. While first concepts and ideas in this direction have emerged in recent years, this paper adopts a conceptual, basic science perspective and examines possible sources of uncertainty. By adopting the viewpoint of a statistician, we discuss the concepts of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which are more commonly associated with machine learning. The paper aims to formalize the two types of uncertainty and demonstrates that sources of uncertainty are miscellaneous and can not always be decomposed into aleatoric and epistemic. Drawing parallels between statistical concepts and uncertainty in machine learning, we emphasise the role of data and their influence on uncertainty.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Probabilistic Deep Learning for Drought Forecasting: Role of Internal Climate Variability
An ensemble-informed lower bound for European drought forecasts, built from CRCM5 large-ensemble variability, is better calibrated than a reanalysis-only bound during 2020-2024, especially for extreme drought.
-
Revisiting Active Learning under (Human) Label Variation
A position paper that surveys and systematizes how active learning should change when human label variation is treated as a signal rather than noise.
-
Position: Uncertainty Quantification Needs Reassessment for Large-language Model Agents
A position paper arguing that aleatoric/epistemic uncertainty splits fail for LLM agents and proposing underspecification, interaction, and output-based uncertainty research.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.