Beyond Confidence: Modeling Uncertainty in Graph Networks

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new approach to graph neural networks explicitly quantifies prediction uncertainty, enhancing robustness in challenging data scenarios.

A graph neural network iteratively distills information across a network’s layers-gaining and losing signal with each step-to construct a latent joint representation from which a credal layer maps uncertainty, highlighting reliable predictions in green and flagging out-of-distribution nodes-likely due to either inherent randomness or knowledge gaps-in red.
A graph neural network iteratively distills information across a network’s layers-gaining and losing signal with each step-to construct a latent joint representation from which a credal layer maps uncertainty, highlighting reliable predictions in green and flagging out-of-distribution nodes-likely due to either inherent randomness or knowledge gaps-in red.

This paper introduces Credal Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs) for robust uncertainty quantification, particularly addressing heterophily and improving out-of-distribution detection in graph data.

Reliable deployment of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) demands robust uncertainty quantification, yet current methods often rely on computationally expensive Bayesian inference or ensemble techniques. This paper introduces Credal Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs), a novel framework extending credal learning to the graph domain by training GNNs to output set-valued predictions representing epistemic uncertainty. By developing a complementary approach tailored to the unique characteristics of message passing, CGNNs deliver more reliable representations-particularly on heterophilic graphs-and achieve state-of-the-art performance under distributional shift. Could this approach unlock more trustworthy and adaptable GNNs for real-world applications involving complex relational data?

The Illusion of Certainty: When Prediction Fails to Account for Doubt

Many machine learning models, despite achieving impressive accuracy, typically deliver a single “best guess” prediction – a point estimate – without indicating the level of confidence or potential error associated with it. This practice presents a significant limitation, as it fails to acknowledge the inherent ambiguity often present in data and the model’s own limitations in fully capturing complex relationships. While a model might confidently predict a stock price or a patient’s risk level, it rarely provides a measure of how reliable that prediction is – for instance, a probability range or a margin of error. This omission isn’t merely a technical oversight; it fundamentally hinders informed decision-making, particularly in critical applications where understanding the range of possible outcomes is as important as the most likely one. Consequently, users are left with a false sense of precision, potentially leading to overreliance on flawed predictions and an inability to appropriately manage risk.

The absence of well-calibrated confidence estimates poses significant risks within critical domains like healthcare and finance. Machine learning models frequently generate predictions without indicating the reliability of those forecasts; a model might confidently suggest a diagnosis or investment strategy, yet offer no measure of its certainty. This can lead to flawed decision-making with substantial consequences – a misdiagnosis based on an overconfident algorithm, or a financial crisis triggered by an unacknowledged prediction error. In these high-stakes scenarios, understanding not just what a model predicts, but how sure it is about that prediction, is paramount for responsible implementation and effective risk management. The potential for harm underscores the urgent need for methods that accurately quantify and communicate predictive uncertainty.

The unacknowledged presence of uncertainty in predictive modeling fosters a dangerous overreliance on potentially flawed outputs. When systems deliver forecasts without indicating the degree of possible error, decision-makers are subtly encouraged to treat those predictions as absolute truths. This can lead to substantial risks, particularly in critical domains; for instance, a medical diagnosis system lacking uncertainty quantification might misclassify a condition with high confidence, resulting in inappropriate treatment, or a financial model might underestimate risk, leading to significant losses. The issue isn’t necessarily inaccurate predictions, but rather the illusion of accuracy, where the absence of a stated margin of error masks the true potential for deviation and ultimately undermines sound judgment. Such overconfidence, born from a lack of transparency regarding predictive limitations, can transform calculated risks into catastrophic failures.

Distinguishing between genuine unpredictability within a system and a simple absence of information represents a fundamental hurdle in predictive modeling. Often, models treat all errors as stemming from randomness, failing to recognize when a prediction falters not because of chaotic underlying processes, but because the model lacks sufficient data or the right features to make an informed assessment. This is particularly problematic because it obscures the true limits of a model’s capabilities; a high error rate could signal irreducible noise, or it could reveal a need for more comprehensive data collection or a refined algorithmic approach. Consequently, accurately separating aleatoric uncertainty – the inherent randomness – from epistemic uncertainty – the uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge – is crucial for building robust and reliable predictive systems, allowing for better risk assessment and more informed decision-making in complex scenarios.

Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty visualizations reveal how a model distinguishes between noise (high aleatoric uncertainty), out-of-distribution data (high epistemic uncertainty), and novel inputs requiring parameter updates (high epistemic uncertainty with low aleatoric uncertainty), as represented by both Bayesian continuous distributions and corresponding credal sets with probability bounds.
Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty visualizations reveal how a model distinguishes between noise (high aleatoric uncertainty), out-of-distribution data (high epistemic uncertainty), and novel inputs requiring parameter updates (high epistemic uncertainty with low aleatoric uncertainty), as represented by both Bayesian continuous distributions and corresponding credal sets with probability bounds.

Beyond Single Answers: Disentangling Belief with Credal Learning

Credal learning utilizes sets of probability distributions, known as credal sets, to represent uncertainty in a mathematically rigorous manner. Unlike single probability distributions that offer a singular belief, credal sets define a range of plausible models, each assigning probabilities to possible outcomes. These sets are typically constructed using imprecise probabilities, where instead of assigning a single probability value to an event, a range or interval of possible values is provided. This allows for the representation of both subjective beliefs and objective randomness. Formally, a credal set $K$ is a family of probability distributions $P$ over a state space $\Omega$, satisfying certain coherence constraints. This framework is particularly useful when dealing with limited data, conflicting evidence, or incomplete knowledge, as it avoids overconfidence in a single probabilistic model.

Credal learning differentiates between two primary sources of uncertainty: aleatoric and epistemic. Aleatoric uncertainty, also known as statistical variance, arises from the inherent randomness in a process or data and is irreducible; even with perfect knowledge, this uncertainty remains. Epistemic uncertainty, conversely, stems from a lack of knowledge about the true underlying model or parameters. It represents the uncertainty in our beliefs and can, in principle, be reduced with more data or improved modeling. By representing a range of plausible probability distributions – a credal set – the framework allows for the explicit modeling and distinction of these two uncertainty types, facilitating more nuanced analysis than methods which treat all uncertainty as homogeneous. This separation is crucial for applications where understanding the source of uncertainty impacts decision-making and risk mitigation strategies.

The capacity to differentiate between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty sources within credal learning directly improves decision-making and risk assessment processes. By quantifying both irreducible randomness ($ \sigma^2 $) and uncertainty stemming from limited knowledge, systems can avoid overconfidence in predictions. This allows for the implementation of strategies that account for potential model errors or data gaps, leading to more robust outcomes, especially in high-stakes scenarios. Risk can be assessed not only based on the probability of an event but also on the degree of belief in that probability, facilitating the development of conservative or adaptive policies as appropriate. Consequently, credal learning supports more nuanced evaluations of potential consequences and enables the selection of actions aligned with a specified risk tolerance.

Conventional machine learning approaches, such as single-point estimate models and even basic Bayesian networks, often fail to adequately capture the nuances of uncertainty inherent in complex systems. These methods typically output single predictions without quantifying the range of plausible values or distinguishing between different sources of uncertainty. However, architectural extensions, including the use of ensembles, mixture models, and specialized layers designed to output probability distributions rather than point estimates, can mitigate these limitations. Specifically, models can be designed to maintain and update sets of probability distributions, effectively representing credal sets. Furthermore, incorporating mechanisms for explicitly modeling and separating aleatoric from epistemic uncertainty within the architecture – for example, through the use of variational inference or evidential deep learning – allows for a more complete and informative representation of uncertainty, enabling improved calibration and robustness.

Graph Intelligence, Reimagined: A Robust Framework with Credal Graph Neural Networks

Credal Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs) represent an extension of credal learning principles to graph-structured data. Traditional machine learning often yields point estimates for predictions; CGNNs, conversely, output a credal set – a convex set of probability distributions – representing a range of plausible predictions. This is achieved by modeling uncertainty directly within the network’s architecture, allowing for a quantifiable representation of epistemic uncertainty. By adapting credal learning, which focuses on representing plausibility rather than single best guesses, to the graph domain, CGNNs facilitate more robust and reliable predictions when dealing with incomplete or ambiguous graph data. The framework enables the expression of uncertainty about node classifications or link predictions, providing a more informative output than standard graph neural networks.

Credal Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs) depart from standard graph neural networks by providing prediction uncertainty estimates. This is achieved through the implementation of a ‘Credal Layer’ and ‘Interval SoftMax’ function, which, instead of outputting single probability values for each class, generate probability intervals. Specifically, for a given input, the model predicts a lower and upper bound for the probability of each class, represented as $[p_{min}, p_{max}]$. This interval encapsulates the model’s uncertainty; a wider interval indicates greater uncertainty, while a narrower interval suggests higher confidence. The interval is derived from the output of the Credal Layer, processed through the Interval SoftMax, ensuring the lower and upper bounds adhere to probabilistic constraints – that is, $0 \le p_{min} \le p_{max} \le 1$ – and providing a quantifiable measure of prediction confidence for each class.

The CGNN model employs a Joint Latent Representation to consolidate node information within the graph structure. This representation is learned through multiple layers of message passing, where each layer aggregates feature information from a node’s immediate neighbors. Specifically, nodes iteratively update their latent vectors by exchanging messages, effectively propagating information across the graph. The resulting latent vector for each node encapsulates both its individual features and the collective influence of its network neighborhood, providing a comprehensive basis for subsequent uncertainty quantification and classification tasks. The process can be formalized as $h_i^{(l+1)} = \sigma(W h_i^{(l)} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} h_j^{(l)})$, where $h_i^{(l)}$ is the latent vector for node $i$ at layer $l$, $\mathcal{N}(i)$ denotes the neighbors of node $i$, and $W$ represents a learnable weight matrix.

Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) is implemented to improve the model’s resilience to adversarial perturbations and distributional shifts in the input data. DRO achieves this by formulating the learning problem as a min-max optimization, where the model minimizes the worst-case expected loss over a defined ambiguity set. This ambiguity set, centered around the empirical distribution, represents plausible deviations from the training data. Specifically, the optimization seeks to minimize $E_{p \in \Pi(P_{emp})} [L(p, \theta)]$, where $P_{emp}$ is the empirical distribution, $\Pi$ defines the ambiguity set, $L$ is the loss function, and $\theta$ represents the model parameters. By directly addressing the potential for data distribution uncertainty, DRO provides a quantifiable robustness guarantee beyond standard empirical risk minimization.

Beyond Accuracy: The Pursuit of Robustness and Out-of-Distribution Awareness

Compared to standard Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Conditional Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs) exhibit significantly enhanced robustness, particularly when faced with the challenges of noisy or incomplete data. This improved performance stems from the CGNN’s capacity to model uncertainty in its predictions, allowing it to better discern reliable signals from spurious correlations often introduced by data imperfections. While traditional GNNs can be easily misled by even minor perturbations or missing information, the conditional framework effectively mitigates these effects by learning a distribution over possible graph structures and node features. Consequently, CGNNs maintain predictive accuracy even under adverse conditions, proving valuable in real-world applications where data quality is rarely ideal and missing values are commonplace. This resilience represents a key advancement towards deploying reliable graph-based machine learning models in practical settings.

Conditional Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs) move beyond simply predicting node labels to also assess the confidence in those predictions, a capability crucial for real-world applications where data can deviate from training conditions. This is achieved by quantifying predictive uncertainty – essentially, how sure the network is about its answer. Instead of blindly accepting a prediction, the CGNN provides an estimate of its reliability, allowing it to flag potentially untrustworthy results when encountering data significantly different from what it was trained on – a process known as Out-of-Distribution (OOD) detection. This is particularly valuable because graph structures and node features are rarely static; the ability to identify and reject unreliable predictions safeguards against erroneous conclusions and promotes responsible AI deployment in dynamic environments. By effectively gauging its own limitations, the CGNN delivers not just answers, but also a measure of their trustworthiness.

Current graph neural networks often struggle when faced with data differing from their training distribution, a limitation addressed by a novel framework demonstrating state-of-the-art performance in out-of-distribution (OOD) detection, particularly on heterophilic graphs-those lacking the tendency for connected nodes to share similar features. This framework excels at identifying instances where predictions might be unreliable, a crucial capability for real-world applications where data integrity cannot be guaranteed. By effectively flagging these anomalous cases, the system enhances the trustworthiness of graph-based predictions and opens doors for more robust and dependable machine learning in complex network environments. The approach represents a significant step toward deploying graph neural networks in scenarios demanding high confidence and adaptability.

Comparative Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs) have demonstrably surpassed existing methods in identifying anomalous data within complex graph structures, achieving a state-of-the-art Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) on several challenging heterophilic benchmarks. Specifically, evaluations on graphs like Chameleon, Squirrel, ArXiv, and Patents reveal CGNNs’ superior ability to distinguish between in-distribution and out-of-distribution data points – a crucial capability for real-world applications where data integrity cannot be guaranteed. This performance suggests that the framework’s uncertainty quantification mechanisms effectively capture the nuances of heterophilic graphs, where node connections don’t align with shared features, leading to more reliable and trustworthy predictions than standard Graph Neural Networks.

A nuanced performance trade-off emerges when considering Conditional Graph Neural Networks (CGNNs); while demonstrating superior robustness and out-of-distribution detection, these models exhibit a slight decrease in F1-score on in-distribution graphs when contrasted with standard, Vanilla GNNs. Importantly, this performance reduction isn’t uniform, but rather correlates directly with the complexity of the classification task – specifically, the number of classes within the dataset. Investigations reveal that as the number of classes increases, the magnitude of this F1-score difference also tends to grow, suggesting that the benefits of CGNN’s uncertainty quantification and robustness become increasingly valuable in more complex, high-dimensional classification scenarios, effectively balancing predictive accuracy with reliable confidence estimation.

The effectiveness of graph neural networks relies on message passing – the process of nodes exchanging information with their neighbors – but this mechanism is intrinsically linked to the underlying graph’s structure. Networks perform with greater confidence when faced with homophily, where connected nodes share similar characteristics, allowing messages to consistently reinforce existing beliefs. However, when graphs exhibit heterophily – connections between dissimilar nodes – message passing becomes less reliable, potentially leading to overconfident yet incorrect predictions. This is because conflicting information circulates, making it difficult for nodes to converge on accurate representations. Consequently, understanding and accounting for the degree of homophily or heterophily within a graph is crucial for building robust and trustworthy graph neural network models, and forms a key basis for techniques that quantify prediction uncertainty.

The pursuit of robust intelligence, as demonstrated by Credal Graph Neural Networks, inherently involves challenging established boundaries. This work doesn’t simply accept graph data at face value; it actively deconstructs the assumptions underlying traditional graph neural networks, particularly when confronted with heterophily. This echoes Claude Shannon’s sentiment: “Communication is the process of conveying meaning between entities using signs and symbols.” Shannon’s focus on the fundamental process of conveying information mirrors the CGNN’s approach – by explicitly modeling uncertainty, the network attempts to more accurately ‘convey’ reliable information even when faced with noisy or incomplete data. The CGNN framework, through its quantification of both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, isn’t building a fortress of certainty but rather mapping the very contours of its own limitations-a true act of intellectual reverse-engineering.

What Breaks Next?

The pursuit of uncertainty quantification, as demonstrated by Credal Graph Neural Networks, inevitably circles back to the assumptions baked into the very notion of ‘belief’. This framework dutifully assigns probabilities, delineates epistemic from aleatoric uncertainty – but what happens when the boundaries blur, when the distinction itself is a convenient fiction? Future work must aggressively probe those edges. Can CGNNs be deliberately misled – fed data crafted to exploit the credal structure, forcing a collapse of confidence where none should exist? Exploring adversarial attacks tailored to credal learning isn’t merely a robustness test; it’s an autopsy of the system’s core vulnerabilities.

Heterophily, the paper correctly identifies as a key challenge. But the real question isn’t just detecting differing node characteristics; it’s understanding what happens when those differences are fundamentally unknowable. If a graph represents a system with hidden variables, irreducible complexity, can CGNNs gracefully degrade, admitting its own limitations, or will it stubbornly attempt to model the unmodellable? A particularly interesting direction lies in integrating CGNNs with causal inference techniques – not to solve the problem of unobserved confounders, but to explicitly map the space of plausible causal structures, acknowledging the inherent ambiguity.

Finally, out-of-distribution detection, while valuable, risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. A system that flags novelty may also stifle it. The goal shouldn’t be to simply reject the unexpected, but to adapt – to incorporate new information, even if it shatters existing beliefs. Perhaps the true test of a robust uncertainty framework isn’t its ability to predict failure, but its capacity to learn from it.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.02722.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-03 23:08