CLEAR: Calibrated Learning for Epistemic and Aleatoric Risk
Ilia Azizi, Juraj Bodik, Jakob Heiss, Bin Yu

TL;DR
CLEAR is a calibration method that effectively combines aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties to produce more reliable predictive intervals across diverse datasets, improving coverage and interval width.
Contribution
We introduce CLEAR, a novel calibration approach with two parameters that balances and combines aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties for better predictive interval coverage.
Findings
Achieves 28.3% and 17.5% improvements in interval width over baselines.
Maintains nominal coverage across 17 datasets.
Effective in high uncertainty scenarios.
Abstract
Accurate uncertainty quantification is critical for reliable predictive modeling. Existing methods typically address either aleatoric uncertainty due to measurement noise or epistemic uncertainty resulting from limited data, but not both in a balanced manner. We propose CLEAR, a calibration method with two distinct parameters, and , to combine the two uncertainty components and improve the conditional coverage of predictive intervals for regression tasks. CLEAR is compatible with any pair of aleatoric and epistemic estimators; we show how it can be used with (i) quantile regression for aleatoric uncertainty and (ii) ensembles drawn from the Predictability-Computability-Stability (PCS) framework for epistemic uncertainty. Across 17 diverse real-world datasets, CLEAR achieves an average improvement of 28.3\% and 17.5\% in the interval width compared to the two…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
CLEAR presents a principled, practical, and empirically effective framework for calibrated uncertainty quantification by adaptively fusing epistemic and aleatoric components. Its main innovation lies in the dual-parameter calibration, which yields sharper, better-calibrated intervals without sacrificing coverage. In particular, its key strengths are: **Strengths:** 1. **Balanced Uncertainty Integration**: CLEAR uniquely combines both aleatoric (data noise) and epistemic (model/data limitation)
Although CLEAR enjoys some key benefits over existing methods, it does have some limitations. In particular, its key weaknesses are: **Weaknesses:** 1. **Dependence on Base Estimators**: CLEAR’s performance hinges on the quality of the underlying aleatoric and epistemic estimators. Poor base models may limit gains or require careful tuning. 2. **Calibration Data Requirements**: The dual-parameter calibration ($\gamma_1, \lambda$) uses the validation set for both model selection and calibratio
+ Learning the combination of aleatoric and epistrmic uncretainties in one model is an important practical question + Reproducibility in the supplementary material + Improvement in experiments
- Contribution is the combination of known methods via grid search - If the distribution is non-Gaussian, the proposed method is limited due to its strong focus on the mean, and its symmetry. Why not median or another statistic? How about skewed distributions? Bimodal? - Theoretical justification is limited
1. Unlike methods that use a fixed ratio to combine the two uncertainties, CLEAR selects the balance parameter based on data characteristics. For example, it emphasizes aleatoric uncertainty when working with data with few features and epistemic uncertainty when using data with many features, making it flexible across different scenarios. 2. It works with various uncertainty estimation methods (including tree-based PCS and deep learning-based Deep Ensembles or Simultaneous Quantile Regression) a
1. The proof requires that "at least k base models in the PCS ensemble are consistent with the true function," but it does not define specific criteria for determining consistency (such as error convergence thresholds) nor explain the basis for selecting k. In practical experiments, the consistency of different models varies significantly, yet the paper fails to analyze the risk of theoretical guarantees failing in such scenarios. 2. The additivity of the two types of uncertainty has not been p
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsSeismology and Earthquake Studies
