arXiv preprint ·
Uncertainty Evaluation: Bridging Machine Learning and Measurement Science
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Published in
- arXiv
- DOI
- 10.48550/arxiv.2610.18066
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Cited by
- 0 works, as OpenAlex counts them
- Topics
In brief
A Measurement-Science Lens on AI Uncertainty
The paper develops conceptual parallels between ML and metrology, including how each handles changing conditions, unusual operating situations, and the validity of an uncertainty assessment. It advocates adapting measurement science’s systematic process of identifying, quantifying, and propagating uncertainty contributions to create a more consistent basis for evaluating individual ML predictions.
What they found: The paper is conceptual and reports no numerical benchmark results. Its central finding is that the conventional aleatoric–epistemic distinction, like the older random–systematic error distinction in measurement science, is model-dependent and insufficient as a unified framework. The authors connect ML uncertainty evaluation with metrology’s attention to process quality, result quality, distribution changes, unusual conditions, and validity.
AI-written summary. Check anything you rely on against the original paper.
Abstract
Reliable uncertainty evaluation is essential for assessing the trustworthiness of machine learning (ML) predictions, particularly in safety-critical applications. This paper explores conceptual analogies between uncertainty evaluation in ML and measurement science, drawing on the evolution of metrology from error-based approaches to the framework established by the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). Particular attention is devoted to the distinction between process-level and result-level quality and to the limitations of the conventional classification of ML uncertainty into aleatoric and epistemic components. It is argued that this dichotomy, similarly to the traditional distinction between random and systematic measurement errors, is inherently model-dependent and provides an insufficient basis for a unified uncertainty evaluation framework. Further analogies between machine learning and measurement field of knowledge are identified concerning distribution shifts, anomalous operating conditions, and the validity of uncertainty evaluation. Building on the proposed considerations, the paper advocates a metrology-inspired approach based on the systematic identification, quantification, and propagation of uncertainty contributions. By extending the methodology already established in measurement science to ML, this approach could offer a potentially rigorous, consistent, and transferable framework for evaluating the trustworthiness of individual predictions.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Foundation Models for Event Prediction Across Heterogeneous Event Logs
Generalization Analysis of Biased Stochastic Gradient Methods for Minimax Problems
YUBI-Real2Sim: 3DGS Scene Verification for Reliable Policy Evaluation
LLM-jp-4 Technical Report
Enhanced Detective: A Dual-Stage Proactive Defense Against Internal Poisoning Attacks in Financial Fraud Detection Using Federated Learning
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.