All You Need for Counterfactual Explainability Is Principled and Reliable Estimate of Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17007v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:38:31 GMT
• Title: All You Need for Counterfactual Explainability Is Principled and Reliable Estimate of Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty
• Authors: Kacper Sokol, Eyke Hüllermeier,
• Abstract summary: We argue that transparency research overlooks many foundational concepts of artificial intelligence.<n>Inherently transparent models can benefit from human-centred explanatory insights.<n>At a higher level, integrating artificial intelligence fundamentals into transparency research promises to yield more reliable, robust and understandable predictive models.
• Score: 27.344785490275864
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This position paper argues that, to its detriment, transparency research overlooks many foundational concepts of artificial intelligence. Here, we focus on uncertainty quantification -- in the context of ante-hoc interpretability and counterfactual explainability -- showing how its adoption could address key challenges in the field. First, we posit that uncertainty and ante-hoc interpretability offer complementary views of the same underlying idea; second, we assert that uncertainty provides a principled unifying framework for counterfactual explainability. Consequently, inherently transparent models can benefit from human-centred explanatory insights -- like counterfactuals -- which are otherwise missing. At a higher level, integrating artificial intelligence fundamentals into transparency research promises to yield more reliable, robust and understandable predictive models.

Related papers

• Exploring the Potential for Large Language Models to Demonstrate Rational Probabilistic Beliefs [12.489784979345654]
  We show that current versions of large language models (LLMs) lack the ability to provide rational and coherent representations of probabilistic beliefs. We apply well-established techniques for uncertainty quantification to measure the ability of LLM's to adhere to fundamental properties of probabilistic reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T11:50:30Z)
• Is Trust Correlated With Explainability in AI? A Meta-Analysis [0.0]
  We conduct a comprehensive examination of the existing literature to explore the relationship between AI explainability and trust. Our analysis, incorporating data from 90 studies, reveals a statistically significant but moderate positive correlation between the explainability of AI systems and the trust they engender. This research highlights its broader socio-technical implications, particularly in promoting accountability and fostering user trust in critical domains such as healthcare and justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T23:30:55Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [49.60774626839712]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their fairness, reliability, and potential for misuse. We propose an evaluation framework designed to assess model reliability through their responses to perturbations in the embedding space. Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and retrieval of bias provenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Know Where You're Uncertain When Planning with Multimodal Foundation Models: A Formal Framework [54.40508478482667]
  We present a comprehensive framework to disentangle, quantify, and mitigate uncertainty in perception and plan generation. We propose methods tailored to the unique properties of perception and decision-making. We show that our uncertainty disentanglement framework reduces variability by up to 40% and enhances task success rates by 5% compared to baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T17:32:00Z)
• Can you trust your explanations? A robustness test for feature attribution methods [42.36530107262305]
  The field of Explainable AI (XAI) has seen a rapid growth but the usage of its techniques has at times led to unexpected results. We will show how leveraging manifold hypothesis and ensemble approaches can be beneficial to an in-depth analysis of the robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T14:17:57Z)
• Explainable AI for clinical risk prediction: a survey of concepts, methods, and modalities [2.9404725327650767]
  Review of progress in developing explainable models for clinical risk prediction. emphasizes the need for external validation and the combination of diverse interpretability methods. End-to-end approach to explainability in clinical risk prediction is essential for success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-16T14:51:51Z)
• (Un)reasonable Allure of Ante-hoc Interpretability for High-stakes Domains: Transparency Is Necessary but Insufficient for Comprehensibility [25.542848590851758]
  Ante-hoc interpretability has become the holy grail of explainable artificial intelligence for high-stakes domains such as healthcare. It can refer to predictive models whose structure adheres to domain-specific constraints, or ones that are inherently transparent. We unpack this concept to better understand what is needed for its safe adoption across high-stakes domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-04T09:34:41Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Evidential Regression [72.30888739450343]
  A new approach with uncertainty-aware regression-based neural networks (NNs) shows promise over traditional deterministic methods and typical Bayesian NNs. We detail the theoretical shortcomings and analyze the performance on synthetic and real-world data sets, showing that Deep Evidential Regression is a quantification rather than an exact uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T10:10:32Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.