Credal Concept Bottleneck Models - Decomposing predictive uncertainty into epistemic (model ignorance) and aleatoric (data ambiguity) components is central to reliable decision making, yet most methods estimate both from the same predictive distribution. Recent empirical and theoretical results show these estimates are typically strongly correlated, so changes in predictive spread simultaneously affect both components and blur their semantics. We propose a credal-set formulation in which uncertainty is represented as a set of predictive distributions, so that epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty correspond to distinct geometric properties: the size of the set versus the noise within its elements. We instantiate this idea in a Variational Credal Concept Bottleneck Model with two disjoint uncertainty heads trained by disjoint objectives and non-overlapping gradient paths, yielding separation by construction rather than post hoc decomposition. Across multi-annotator benchmarks, our approach reduces the correlation between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty by over an order of magnitude compared to standard methods, while improving the alignment of epistemic uncertainty with prediction error and aleatoric uncertainty with ground-truth ambiguity.  Explanation Quality Assessment as Ranking with Listwise Rewards - We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely.