Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “aleatoric uncertainty”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

40 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Anomalous electroweak physics unraveled via evidential deep learning

The ever-growing ecosystem of beyond standard model (BSM) calculations and parametrizations has motivated the development of systematic methods for making quantitative cross-comparisons over the wide range of possible models, especially with controllable uncertainties. In this setting, the language of uncertainty quantification (UQ) furnishes useful metrics for assessing statistical overlaps and discrepancies among BSM and related models. In this study, we leverage recent machine learning (ML) developments in evidential deep learning (EDL) for UQ to separate data (aleatoric) and knowledge (epistemic) uncertainties in a model-discrimination setting. We construct several potentially BSM-motivated scenarios for the anomalous electroweak interaction (AEWI) of neutrinos with nucleons in deep inelastic scattering ( v DIS). These scenarios are then quantitatively mapped, as a demonstration, alongside Monte Carlo replicas of the CT18 PDFs used to calculate the $\varDelta \chi ^{2}$ statistic for a typical multi-GeV v DIS experiment, CDHSW. Our framework effectively highlights areas of model agreement and provides a classification of out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. By offering the opportunity to quantitatively understand model overlaps, the approach presented in this work can help facilitate efficient BSM model exploration and exclusion for future New Physics searches.

AI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Perspectives on Systematic Cloud Microphysics Scheme Development With Machine Learning

Cloud microphysics—the collection of processes that govern the small‐scale formation, evolution, and interactions of liquid droplets and ice crystals in clouds and precipitation—remains a major source of uncertainty in weather and climate models. Although too small in scale to be explicitly resolved in any large‐eddy simulation, weather, or climate model, the representation of cloud microphysical processes has significant impact at the climate scale. Current microphysical schemes are limited by both parametric uncertainty, linked to uncertainty in physical parameter values, and structural uncertainty, arising from incomplete physical understanding of the processes at play or approximations made for computational efficiency. Recent advances in the application of machine learning (ML) to the physical sciences show significant potential for minimizing these limitations by leveraging high‐fidelity simulations and observations. Here we outline the challenges that must be addressed to apply ML toward cloud microphysics scheme development. This perspectives paper synthesizes recent progress in using data‐driven methods, including ML, to improve cloud microphysics parameterizations and highlights opportunities to address key uncertainties. We discuss the roles of aleatoric (irreducible, or statistical) and epistemic (reducible, or systematic) errors in contributing to microphysics parameterization uncertainty. ML can leverage observations to improve microphysical schemes via bottom‐up and top‐down constraints. Methods such as differentiable programming and ML‐enhanced sampling strategies and the creation of large scale benchmark data sets promise to bridge the gap between observations and models and to improve the consistency of cloud microphysical representation across temporal and spatial scales.

Lamb, Kara D. [Columbia Univ., New York, NY (Unite↗
DOE OSTI2020

Deeply Uncertain: Comparing Methods of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning Algorithms [Slides]

Deep learning is used in many applications in the physical sciences. In those sciences we are used to having uncertainty on every measurement or prediction. In the last years, many methods have been put forth for uncertainty quantification: Bayesian Neural Networks, Concrete Dropout, and Deep Ensembles. Uncertainty in deep learning is often divided into aleatoric or irreducible and epistemic or reducible. The problem remains: Which uncertainty quantification method should be chosen? How are those results interpreted?

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Deeply uncertain: comparing methods of uncertainty quantification in deep learning algorithms

We present a comparison of methods for uncertainty quantification (UQ) in deep learning algorithms in the context of a simple physical system. Three of the most common uncertainty quantification methods - Bayesian Neural Networks (BNN), Concrete Dropout (CD), and Deep Ensembles (DE) - are compared to the standard analytic error propagation. We discuss this comparison in terms endemic to both machine learning ("epistemic" and "aleatoric") and the physical sciences ("statistical" and "systematic"). The comparisons are presented in terms of simulated experimental measurements of a single pendulum - a prototypical physical system for studying measurement and analysis techniques. Our results highlight some pitfalls that may occur when using these UQ methods. For example, when the variation of noise in the training set is small, all methods predicted the same relative uncertainty independently of the inputs. This issue is particularly hard to avoid in BNN. On the other hand, when the test set contains samples far from the training distribution, we found that no methods sufficiently increased the uncertainties associated to their predictions. This problem was particularly clear for CD. In light of these results, we make some recommendations for usage and interpretation of UQ methods.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗