Assessing reliability of explanations in unbalanced datasets: a use-case on the occurrence of frost events

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09545v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2025 09:12:38 GMT
• Title: Assessing reliability of explanations in unbalanced datasets: a use-case on the occurrence of frost events
• Authors: Ilaria Vascotto, Valentina Blasone, Alex Rodriguez, Alessandro Bonaita, Luca Bortolussi,
• Abstract summary: In this study, we provide some preliminary insights on evaluating the reliability of explanations in the specific case of unbalanced datasets.<n>We propose a simple evaluation focused on the minority class that leverages on-manifold generation of neighbours, explanation aggregation and a metric to test explanation consistency.
• Score: 39.981755859250505
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The usage of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods has become essential in practical applications, given the increasing deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models and the legislative requirements put forward in the latest years. A fundamental but often underestimated aspect of the explanations is their robustness, a key property that should be satisfied in order to trust the explanations. In this study, we provide some preliminary insights on evaluating the reliability of explanations in the specific case of unbalanced datasets, which are very frequent in high-risk use-cases, but at the same time considerably challenging for both AI models and XAI methods. We propose a simple evaluation focused on the minority class (i.e. the less frequent one) that leverages on-manifold generation of neighbours, explanation aggregation and a metric to test explanation consistency. We present a use-case based on a tabular dataset with numerical features focusing on the occurrence of frost events.

Related papers

• XForecast: Evaluating Natural Language Explanations for Time Series Forecasting [72.57427992446698]
  Time series forecasting aids decision-making, especially for stakeholders who rely on accurate predictions. Traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods, which underline feature or temporal importance, often require expert knowledge. evaluating forecast NLEs is difficult due to the complex causal relationships in time series data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:16:39Z)
• When Can You Trust Your Explanations? A Robustness Analysis on Feature Importances [42.36530107262305]
  robustness of explanations plays a central role in ensuring trust in both the system and the provided explanation.<n>We propose a novel approach to analyse the robustness of neural network explanations to non-adversarial perturbations.<n>We additionally present an ensemble method to aggregate various explanations, showing how merging explanations can be beneficial for both understanding the model's decision and evaluating the robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T14:17:57Z)
• Unified Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Perturbation Approach [0.0]
  Inconsistencies between XAI and modeling techniques can have the undesirable effect of casting doubt upon the efficacy of these explainability approaches. We propose a systematic, perturbation-based analysis against a popular, model-agnostic method in XAI, SHapley Additive exPlanations (Shap) We devise algorithms to generate relative feature importance in settings of dynamic inference amongst a suite of popular machine learning and deep learning methods, and metrics that allow us to quantify how well explanations generated under the static case hold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T16:04:35Z)
• Robust Survival Analysis with Adversarial Regularization [6.001304967469112]
  Survival Analysis (SA) models the time until an event occurs. Recent work shows that Neural Networks (NNs) can capture complex relationships in SA. We leverage NN verification advances to create algorithms for robust, fully-parametric survival models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T12:18:31Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Causality-Aware Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations [7.412445894287709]
  We propose a novel extension to a widely used local and model-agnostic explainer, which encodes explicit causal relationships within the data surrounding the instance being explained. Our approach overcomes the original method in terms of faithfully replicating the black-box model's mechanism and the consistency and reliability of the generated explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-10T10:12:27Z)
• HyperImpute: Generalized Iterative Imputation with Automatic Model Selection [77.86861638371926]
  We propose a generalized iterative imputation framework for adaptively and automatically configuring column-wise models. We provide a concrete implementation with out-of-the-box learners, simulators, and interfaces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-15T19:10:35Z)
• Principled Knowledge Extrapolation with GANs [92.62635018136476]
  We study counterfactual synthesis from a new perspective of knowledge extrapolation. We show that an adversarial game with a closed-form discriminator can be used to address the knowledge extrapolation problem. Our method enjoys both elegant theoretical guarantees and superior performance in many scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-21T08:39:42Z)
• Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models [77.34726150561087]
  We define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. This paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T05:59:50Z)
• Logic Constraints to Feature Importances [17.234442722611803]
  "Black box" nature of AI models is often a limit for a reliable application in high-stakes fields like diagnostic techniques, autonomous guide, etc. Recent works have shown that an adequate level of interpretability could enforce the more general concept of model trustworthiness. The basic idea of this paper is to exploit the human prior knowledge of the features' importance for a specific task, in order to coherently aid the phase of the model's fitting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T09:28:38Z)
• When Stability meets Sufficiency: Informative Explanations that do not Overwhelm [15.897648942908747]
  We consider features-based attribution methods that highlight what should be minimally sufficient to justify the classification of an input.<n>While minimal sufficiency is an attractive property akin to comprehensibility, the resulting explanations are often too sparse for a human to understand and evaluate the local behavior of the model.<n>We propose a novel method called Path-Sufficient Explanations Method (PSEM) that outputs a sequence of stable and sufficient explanations for a given input.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-13T16:06:10Z)
• Rational Shapley Values [0.0]
  Most popular tools for post-hoc explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are either insensitive to context or difficult to summarize. I introduce emphrational Shapley values, a novel XAI method that synthesizes and extends these seemingly incompatible approaches. I leverage tools from decision theory and causal modeling to formalize and implement a pragmatic approach that resolves a number of known challenges in XAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T15:45:21Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)

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.