Uncertainty-Aware Selection

• Uncertainty-aware selection is a methodology that integrates epistemic, aleatoric, and application-specific uncertainties to guide robust, interpretable, and calibrated decisions.
• It employs advanced techniques such as Bayesian posterior estimates, deep ensembles, and conformal prediction to balance predictive accuracy while mitigating label noise in various learning tasks.
• By actively quantifying and reducing uncertainty, these approaches enhance active data acquisition, feature/model selection, and treatment recommendations in complex, dynamic environments.

Uncertainty-aware selection refers to a class of methodologies that explicitly integrate measures of uncertainty—whether epistemic, aleatoric, or application-specific—into the selection of models, features, data points, predictions, or actions in learning systems and decision processes. Incorporating uncertainty enables algorithms to make more robust, better-calibrated, and interpretable choices under conditions of ambiguity, limited data, label noise, adversarial or imbalanced regimes, and complex or unknown environments. These approaches are now fundamental in semi-supervised learning, active data acquisition, feature selection, model selection, treatment recommendation, automated annotation, physics-informed inference, and online adaptive systems.

1. Theoretical Foundations and Uncertainty Quantification

Central to uncertainty-aware selection is the quantification and propagation of uncertainty at different levels of the machine learning pipeline. Approaches rely on:

• Parameter/posterior distributions: Bayesian methods model posterior distributions over parameters or functions, providing measures such as credible intervals for selection or variable importance. For example, variable selection via integrated partial derivatives $$\Psi_j = \Vert \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j} f(x) \Vert^2_{P_X}$$ in nonlinear regression places a Gaussian process prior on $f$ and derives the posterior distribution of $\Psi_j$ for uncertainty-aware selection (Deng et al., 2022).
• Epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty: Deep ensembles, MC-dropout, and explicit variance heads (e.g., in uncertainty-aware INVASE) allow decomposition of uncertainty into reducible (epistemic) and irreducible (aleatoric) components for output calibration and robust selection (Zhong et al., 2021, Dorigatti et al., 2022, Rizve et al., 2021).
• Predictive sets and conformal prediction: Conformal prediction, particularly regularized adaptive prediction sets, yields finite-sample-valid uncertainty sets that inform inclusion or exclusion of pseudo-labels or features (Moezzi, 2023).
• Empirical calibration and information-theoretic metrics: Conditional entropy, Kullback-Leibler divergence, expected calibration error, and mutual information are used for measuring and calibrating uncertainty in feature-label correlations, model outputs, and human annotation reliability (Linden et al., 23 Jun 2025, Guo et al., 12 May 2025, Lan et al., 13 Oct 2025, Xu, 24 Aug 2025).

These foundations support principled selection rules that not only optimize predictive accuracy but also safeguard against overfitting, confirmation bias, and misleading calibration under uncertainty.

2. Uncertainty-Aware Selection in Semi-Supervised Learning and Pseudo-Labeling

Semi-supervised and positive-unlabeled learning present acute challenges for pseudo-label selection due to the risk of propagating confirmation bias and noisy labels. Multiple uncertainty-aware selection paradigms have emerged:

• Confidence–uncertainty thresholding: Pseudo-labels are accepted only if their predicted probability is above a confidence threshold and their uncertainty (standard deviation or entropy under MC-dropout/ensemble) is below a set bar. Negative pseudo-labels can also be assigned and learned via negative cross-entropy losses (Rizve et al., 2021, Dorigatti et al., 2022).
• Conformal predictive sets: Instead of single predicted classes, uncertainty sets with guaranteed coverage are constructed, and only labels within these sets are considered valid for downstream training, often followed by an additional uncertainty-based mask (Moezzi, 2023).
• Sequential/data-dependent thresholds: The uncertainty threshold can be dynamically updated by tracking the model’s evolving calibration stagewise, or even set per class for class-imbalanced scenarios (as in long-tailed learning) (Yang et al., 9 Jan 2024).
• Ensembling and labeling calibration: Deep ensemble-based methods use epistemic (mutual information), aleatoric (mean entropy), and total entropy to identify and select stable pseudo-labels, often with class-balance or label-revocation mechanisms that further enhance calibration and reduce harmful bias (Dorigatti et al., 2022).

These frameworks yield substantial reductions in label noise, improved model calibration (lower expected calibration error), and consistently higher accuracy, especially under strong class imbalance, data scarcity, or sequence prediction complexity (Patel et al., 2022, Yang et al., 9 Jan 2024, Rizve et al., 2021, Dorigatti et al., 2022).

3. Uncertainty-Aware Feature and Model Selection

Uncertainty-aware feature selection tackles both global and local (instance-wise) ambiguity about feature relevance:

• Integrated partial derivative (IPD) metrics: Nonlinear variable selection with uncertainty is performed by integrating the squared partial derivatives of the prediction function with respect to each feature over the input space and propagating posterior uncertainty from model parameters to estimate selection confidence; this approach is generalizable to both differentiable (e.g., neural nets, kernels) and non-differentiable (e.g., trees) models (Deng et al., 2022).
• Instance-wise selection with uncertainty reward shaping: In frameworks such as uncertainty-aware INVASE, the predictor not only estimates label means but a per-instance Gaussian predictive variance, which is then used both for instance ranking (active querying) and as a reward shaping term for the selector network—thus querying only high-uncertainty cases, yielding efficient reductions in predictive bias with minimal label queries (Zhong et al., 2021).
• Ensemble-based or information-theoretic ranking: Methods quantify the entropy or mutual information between features and the response, incorporating this into swarm-based or online streaming selection algorithms to create sparse, robust, and uncertainty-aware feature subsets even in streaming or missing data contexts (Xu, 24 Aug 2025, Hao et al., 18 Mar 2025).

For model selection, uncertainty-aware criteria such as calibration error, conformal prediction set size, and marginal likelihoods (with caution regarding geometric complexity) provide more robust guidance than raw accuracy alone, especially when comparing models with differing inductive biases or symmetry constraints (Linden et al., 23 Jun 2025).

4. Uncertainty-Aware Active Data Acquisition and View Selection

Active selection of data points or experimental actions is fundamentally improved when selection criteria explicitly maximize the reduction of model uncertainty:

• Physically-grounded uncertainty estimation: In object-centric 3D reconstruction with 3D Gaussian Splatting, OUGS (Object-aware Uncertainty for 3DGS) explicitly propagates parameter covariance through the rendering Jacobian, defines object-aware uncertainty using semantic masks, and then selects views that maximally reduce this targeted uncertainty, outperforming scene-level and mutual information baselines on object fidelity and uncertainty calibration (Li et al., 12 Nov 2025).
• Wireless localization-informed uncertainty: In multi-robot NeRF, MULAN-WC quantifies localization uncertainty via wireless ranging–AoA fusion, weights the NeRF supervision loss by this uncertainty (sigmoid of error ellipse area), and scores next-best-view candidates by the expected reduction in Gaussian field variance, leading to improved efficiency and hardware robustness (Wang et al., 20 Mar 2024).
• Randomized selection under interval uncertainty: In domains such as peer review or grant funding, the MERIT algorithm uses interval estimates of candidate quality to compute selection probabilities that maximize worst-case expected yield, solving a robust LP with principled ex post properties and outperforming deterministic or ad hoc randomized methods under strong uncertainty (Goldberg et al., 23 Jun 2025).

5. Uncertainty-Aware Data Selection, Labeling, and Treatment Recommendation

Uncertainty-aware selection extends to data annotation, curriculum learning, and sequential treatment planning:

• Human uncertainty in annotation: In vision-language tasks, HaDola employs sample-level human uncertainty (annotator agreement/confidence) to explicitly discard harmful, high-uncertainty examples, bootstrap informative ones, and train VLMs under a loss that matches model confidence to human uncertainty, yielding sharply improved calibration and label efficiency (Lan et al., 13 Oct 2025).
• Long-tailed and clinical applications: Methods for class-imbalanced semi-supervised learning incorporate per-class adaptive uncertainty thresholds (UDTS), so that tail classes have stricter thresholds on pseudo-label entropy, enhancing recall and precision tradeoffs during dynamic training (Yang et al., 9 Jan 2024). In clinical time-series, treatment regimens are optimized by minimizing a sum of desired-outcome deviation and estimated epistemic predictive variance under continuous and dose-constrained settings (Schwarz et al., 11 Oct 2024).
• Physics-informed hyperparameter selection: In PIML, the PILE score uses the GP marginal likelihood—systematically incorporating epistemic uncertainty across data and physics constraints—as a unified hyperparameter selection criterion, resolving ambiguities of ordinary multi-objective loss tuning (Daniels et al., 30 Oct 2025).

6. Methodological Advances and Application Domains

Uncertainty-aware selection is now essential for:

• Robust semi-supervised learning in text, vision, and multimodal tasks using pseudo-labeling, consistency regularization, and active data filtering.
• Online sparse streaming feature selection under sensor/fault uncertainty, utilizing PSO and three-way decision theory for robust, real-time performance (Xu, 24 Aug 2025).
• Multi-view, multi-label feature selection where sample-level uncertainty/confidence modulates the contribution of each example, enhancing trustworthiness on realistic multi-source data (Hao et al., 18 Mar 2025).
• LLM uncertainty source decomposition and adaptive model–metric selection, using pipeline measures of surface-form, aleatoric, epistemic, and operational uncertainty as systematic discriminators for tool selection, calibration, and task adaptation (Guo et al., 12 May 2025).
• LLM-guided search and generation, where uncertainty-aware value models and Group Thompson Sampling mitigate scaling failures of value-based search, robustly selecting promising candidate sequences under exploration–exploitation tradeoff (Yu et al., 16 Feb 2025).

7. Outlook and Challenges

Limitations and ongoing challenges for uncertainty-aware selection include:

• Reliance on accurate uncertainty quantification, especially for deep hierarchical or implicit models.
• Sensitivity to the quality of calibration data or auxiliary (e.g., semantic, localization) signals.
• Computational overhead for ensemble, MC-dropout, or conformal prediction pipelines.
• Extending robust theoretical guarantees (e.g., posterior consistency, coverage) to complex and high-dimensional real-world problem instances.

Ongoing research seeks to develop more geometry-aware priors for model selection (Linden et al., 23 Jun 2025), scalable and interpretable uncertainty decompositions in foundation models (Guo et al., 12 May 2025), and efficient active selection for large streaming or multi-agent systems (Xu, 24 Aug 2025, Li et al., 12 Nov 2025). The use of uncertainty-aware selection is increasingly codified as best practice for high-stakes, data-sparse, and adaptive learning applications.

---

References:

(Rizve et al., 2021, Zhong et al., 2021, Dorigatti et al., 2022, Deng et al., 2022, Patel et al., 2022, Moezzi, 2023, Yang et al., 9 Jan 2024, Wang et al., 20 Mar 2024, Schwarz et al., 11 Oct 2024, Yu et al., 16 Feb 2025, Hao et al., 18 Mar 2025, Guo et al., 12 May 2025, Linden et al., 23 Jun 2025, Goldberg et al., 23 Jun 2025, Xu, 24 Aug 2025, Lan et al., 13 Oct 2025, Daniels et al., 30 Oct 2025, Li et al., 12 Nov 2025)