Evidence Hub

The Physical Fidelity Gap as an Evidence-Traceability Problem in AI Uncertainty Quantification: A Structured Review

Guo L, Ma A, Zhou H, Liu Z, Xiong X

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly produces uncertainty outputs for sensing and measurement tasks, but the evidence supporting these outputs may not maintain a traceable correspondence with the relevant real-world conditions. This study conducted a structured 15-dimensional coding review of 566 studies, of which 556 formed stable dominant AI uncertainty claim units and entered the common analytic set. Each final code was linked to row-level audit evidence. The unidimensional distributions first showed breakpoint states with nonzero frequencies at the relevant nodes of the claim-condition-test-uncertainty-response chain, thereby confirming observable evidence discontinuities in the current corpus. The studies were then stratified using three sequential, non-compensatory evidence questions. Among the 556 studies, 347 (62.4%) were classified as Weak, 133 (23.9%) as Medium, and 76 (13.7%) as Strong. Descriptive cross-dimensional comparisons showed that specific OOD/drift risk or Error/quality estimation claims, Multiple uncertainty entry points, Multiple physical information types, and Sampling/ensemble approximation more often co-occurred with higher evidence traceability; Prediction reliability/confidence claims, a standalone Uncertainty proxy/score, and Latency/real-time inference constraints more often co-occurred with lower evidence traceability. This study summarizes the above evidence discontinuity as the physical fidelity gap (PFG), which refers to incomplete or…

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free