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

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 unverifiable evidential links between AI uncertainty claims publicly reported in the literature and the relevant physical, measurement, or operational conditions. PFG provides a scope-bounded reference for locating links in the evidence chain that may need strengthening. The breakpoints observable in the current corpus indicate that the public evidence still has room for improvement in forming continuous, verifiable claim-condition-test-response correspondences; the tiered comparison indicates that subsequent work can strengthen the evidence chain by clarifying claim conditions, incorporating the relevant conditions into empirical testing, and reporting identifiable uncertainty responses and extended corroboration.