The frame problem in quantitative practice: ontological uncertainty and epistemic humility in an age of automated inference

William Fauriat

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.23614

The frame problem in quantitative practice: ontological uncertainty and epistemic humility in an age of automated inference

William Fauriat

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Quantitative practice across statistics, engineering, and machine learning has been transformed by the automation of inference. Predictions are produced, validated, and deployed at scale and speed that human-mediated reasoning could not match. This shift intersects with a structural limit of reasoning that no methodological refinement dissolves: every inference rests on a finite specification of conditions, and what falls outside the specification does not appear as a widened uncertainty band -it does not appear at all. The choice of specification -the frame -is upstream of the inference and cannot be audited from inside the system that uses it. This paper offers a synthetic, application-oriented review. We argue that three categories of uncertainty operate in quantitative practice -aleatory, epistemic, and frame (or ontological) -and that the third, the residue of finite specification, is structurally invisible to formal analysis within the chosen frame and is the locus of most consequential failures. We trace why the limit applies equally to deductive and inductive reasoning, why no meta-level procedure dissolves the regress, and why current conditions of automated inference make epistemic humility -the practical disposition this argument supports -more, not less, important. We articulate the argument's specific resonances for five typical figures of contemporary quantitative work -the engineer, the statistician, the mathematician, the machine-learning practitioner, and the non-specialist recipient of expert claims -showing how the structural argument bears on each practice's natural defenses. The argument is not against rigor or against quantification; it is for distinguishing rigor earned within a frame from rigor with respect to the frame.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

William Fauriat. 2026-05-22. The frame problem in quantitative practice: ontological uncertainty and epistemic humility in an age of automated inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23614

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bias-Correction for Privacy-Protected Spatial Autoregressive Models with Application to Restaurant Network Analysis

Spatial autoregressive (SAR) models and their extensions are important tools for studying network effects. However, with an increasing emphasis on data privacy, data providers often implement protection measures that render standard SAR models inapplicable. In this study, we introduce a privacy-protected SAR model that incorporates noise into both the response and covariates to meet privacy requirements. With noise present in both components, the traditional quasi-maximum likelihood estimator becomes difficult to compute because the likelihood function cannot be directly formulated. To bypass this hurdle, we begin with a pseudo-likelihood approach, initially omitting the noise in the covariates. A Newton-Raphson algorithm is then applied to compute the estimator; however, the estimator is biased. To address this, we propose a bias-corrected Newton-Raphson-type algorithm that simultaneously accounts for noise in both the response and covariates. We further show, under appropriate regularity conditions, that the resulting estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. To further enhance computational efficiency, we also develop a bias-corrected least squares estimator. Several extensions are discussed, and the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods is evaluated through extensive simulations. We apply the proposed methodology to restaurant transaction data from a third-party payment platform. Our method identifies a statistically significant competitive network effect among restaurants and further reveals meaningful restaurant-customer interaction patterns.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

A variational framework for modal estimation

Multivariate mode estimation arises in many statistical problems such as inverse problems, multimodal sampling, and density-based clustering, but becomes challenging in moderate to high dimensions, especially when the underlying density is not directly evaluable. We introduce GERVE (Gibbs-measure Entropy-Regularized Variational Estimation), a sample-based method for estimating multivariate modes by approximating Gibbs distributions directly from samples, without estimating or evaluating the density. GERVE uses Gaussian-mixture variational annealing and natural-gradient optimization, producing a mixture concentrated in high-density regions whose component responsibilities also provide a clustering of the observations. We prove theoretical guarantees in two regimes: as the Gibbs temperature goes to zero, the optimal variational mixture concentrates around the global modes of the population density; at fixed positive temperature, we prove existence, consistency, and asymptotic normality of empirical maximizers and propose a bootstrap procedure for uncertainty quantification. Simulations and a real-data experiment show that GERVE accurately recovers modes and produces meaningful clusters.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Objective Model Prior Probabilities in Variable Selection

For many years it was routine to use equal model prior probabilities in Bayesian model uncertainty analysis. At least twenty years ago it became clear that this was problematic, leading to support of much too large models in the increasingly huge model spaces being considered in genomics and other fields. A popular replacement was to adopt a suggestion of Harold Jeffreys for the variable selection problem in which a total of $k$ possible variables are being considered for inclusion in the model: give the collection of all models containing $d$ variables ($d = 0, . . . , k$) prior probability $1/(k + 1)$ and then divide this prior probability equally among the models in the collection. Many other choices of model prior probabilities that impose severe parsimony have also been introduced. We begin by reviewing the problems with using equal model prior probabilities and then discuss some serious problems with the Jeffreys choice. Finally, we introduce and study a number of objective alternative choices of model prior probabilities, from both numerical and theoretical perspectives.

stat.ME↗