We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments on the proof. We will clarify better in the main text notions like "overparamaterise" or "fully trained". We further evaluate the robustness of deep ensembles on a subset of the NNs employed in Section 5.3. Table 1: FGSM and PGD attacks on the network employed in Section 5.2. For deterministic NNs Theorem 1 does not hold.

Machine-learning-based parameterizations (i.e. representation of sub-grid processes) of global climate models or turbulent simulations have recently been proposed as a powerful alternative to physical, but empirical, representations, offering a lower computational cost and higher accuracy. Yet, those approaches still suffer from a lack of generalization and extrapolation beyond the training data, which is however critical to projecting climate change or unobserved regimes of turbulence. Here we show that a multi-fidelity approach, which integrates datasets of different accuracy and abundance, can provide the best of both worlds: the capacity to extrapolate leveraging the physically-based parameterization and a higher accuracy using the machine-learning-based parameterizations. In an application to climate modeling, the multi-fidelity framework yields more accurate climate projections without requiring major increase in computational resources. Our multi-fidelity randomized prior networks (MF-RPNs) combine physical parameterization data as low-fidelity and storm-resolving historical run's data as high-fidelity. To extrapolate beyond the training data, the MF-RPNs are tested on high-fidelity warming scenarios, $+4K$, data. We show the MF-RPN's capacity to return much more skillful predictions compared to either low- or high-fidelity (historical data) simulations trained only on one regime while providing trustworthy uncertainty quantification across a wide range of scenarios. Our approach paves the way for the use of machine-learning based methods that can optimally leverage historical observations or high-fidelity simulations and extrapolate to unseen regimes such as climate change.

The need for algorithms able to solve Reinforcement Learning (RL) problems with few trials has motivated the advent of model-based RL methods. The reported performance of model-based algorithms has dramatically increased within recent years. However, it is not clear how much of the recent progress is due to improved algorithms or due to improved models. While different modeling options are available to choose from when applying a model-based approach, the distinguishing traits and particular strengths of different models are not clear. The main contribution of this work lies precisely in assessing the model influence on the performance of RL algorithms. A set of commonly adopted models is established for the purpose of model comparison. These include Neural Networks (NNs), ensembles of NNs, two different approximations of Bayesian NNs (BNNs), that is, the Concrete Dropout NN and the Anchored Ensembling, and Gaussian Processes (GPs). The model comparison is evaluated on a suite of continuous control benchmarking tasks. Our results reveal that significant differences in model performance do exist. The Concrete Dropout NN reports persistently superior performance. We summarize these differences for the benefit of the modeler and suggest that the model choice is tailored to the standards required by each specific application.