Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Calibration is the standard yardstick for spatial uncertainty quantification (UQ), but it is insufficient. On the Amazon Fan, ordinary-kriging variance achieves excellent calibration (ECE = 4.1%) yet carries negligible spatial information(rpooled = +0.16). On the Blake Escarpment, kriging variance yields below-random block prioritization under the locked evaluation protocol. Motivated by this disconnect, we propose a three-axis protocol for evaluating spatial UQ: calibration, an exact within/cross-patch decomposition of the error–uncertainty correlation, and operational prioritization at a fixed resurvey budget. Applying the protocol to deep-sea bathymetric reconstruction across three terrains reveals three failure modes that any single axis misses – calibrated-but-uninformative uncertainty, statistically significant but operationally negligible withinpatch signals, and cross-region ranking reversal via Simpson’s paradox. Learned σ carries reliable cross-patch information(rcross = 0.08–0.50, locked evaluation protocol; confidence intervals at patch level) and concentrates 1.5–3× the random errorat 10% block-level resurvey budgets and remains above-random at 25%. A deep ensemble produces a near-identical primary endpoint, with the broad failure-mode pattern robust to the epistemic-uncertainty estimator, though secondary operational capture is unstable on the small Region 009 evaluation set. A pre-registered prospective test on an unseen fan/plain region yielded rcross = 0.358 inside the predicted interval, consistent with retained cross-patch informativeness on new terrain. An eight-region prospective test cleanly falsified the strong (sign-reversal) form of a terrain-coupling prediction. The contribution is a reproducible, scale-aware evaluation protocol: we show how to assess spatial UQ, not that one estimator universally wins.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: