No Single Metric Tells the Whole Story: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Uncertainty Attributions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24524v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 17:02:13 GMT
• Title: No Single Metric Tells the Whole Story: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Uncertainty Attributions
• Abstract summary: Methods have been proposed to explain prediction uncertainty by attributing it to input features.<n>We propose concrete implementations for the correctness, consistency, continuity, and compactness properties.<n>We demonstrate our evaluation framework with eight metrics across combinations of uncertainty quantification and feature attribution methods.
• Score: 0.31498833540989407
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Research on explainable AI (XAI) has frequently focused on explaining model predictions. More recently, methods have been proposed to explain prediction uncertainty by attributing it to input features (uncertainty attributions). However, the evaluation of these methods remains inconsistent as studies rely on heterogeneous proxy tasks and metrics, hindering comparability. We address this by aligning uncertainty attributions with the well-established Co-12 framework for XAI evaluation. We propose concrete implementations for the correctness, consistency, continuity, and compactness properties. Additionally, we introduce conveyance, a property tailored to uncertainty attributions that evaluates whether controlled increases in epistemic uncertainty reliably propagate to feature-level attributions. We demonstrate our evaluation framework with eight metrics across combinations of uncertainty quantification and feature attribution methods on tabular and image data. Our experiments show that gradient-based methods consistently outperform perturbation-based approaches in consistency and conveyance, while Monte-Carlo dropconnect outperforms Monte-Carlo dropout in most metrics. Although most metrics rank the methods consistently across samples, inter-method agreement remains low. This suggests no single metric sufficiently evaluates uncertainty attribution quality. The proposed evaluation framework contributes to the body of knowledge by establishing a foundation for systematic comparison and development of uncertainty attribution methods.

Related papers

• Concerning Uncertainty -- A Systematic Survey of Uncertainty-Aware XAI [2.204918347869259]
  This paper surveys how uncertainty is incorporated into explainable artificial intelligence (UAXAI)<n>Three recurring approaches to uncertainty emerge: assessing trustworthiness, constraining models or explanations, and explicitly communicating uncertainty.<n>We argue that progress in UAXAI requires unified evaluation principles that link uncertainty propagation, robustness, and human decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-27T08:07:18Z)
• Uncertainty Propagation in XAI: A Comparison of Analytical and Empirical Estimators [1.0855602842179624]
  Understanding uncertainty in Explainable AI (XAI) is crucial for building trust.<n>This paper introduces a unified framework for quantifying and interpreting Uncertainty in XAI.<n>By using both analytical and empirical estimates of explanation variance, we provide a systematic means of assessing the impact uncertainty on explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T07:06:31Z)
• Probabilistic Modeling of Disparity Uncertainty for Robust and Efficient Stereo Matching [61.73532883992135]
  We propose a new uncertainty-aware stereo matching framework.<n>We adopt Bayes risk as the measurement of uncertainty and use it to separately estimate data and model uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T23:28:20Z)
• From Risk to Uncertainty: Generating Predictive Uncertainty Measures via Bayesian Estimation [5.355925496689674]
  We build a framework that allows one to generate different predictive uncertainty measures.<n>We validate our method on image datasets by evaluating its performance in detecting out-of-distribution and misclassified instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T14:40:22Z)
• Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology [43.8328264420381]
  We show that ignoring uncertainty leads to overly optimistic estimates of model performance.<n>In skin condition classification, we find that a large portion of the dataset exhibits significant ground truth uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T10:33:45Z)
• The Implicit Delta Method [61.36121543728134]
  In this paper, we propose an alternative, the implicit delta method, which works by infinitesimally regularizing the training loss of uncertainty. We show that the change in the evaluation due to regularization is consistent for the variance of the evaluation estimator, even when the infinitesimal change is approximated by a finite difference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T19:34:17Z)
• What is Flagged in Uncertainty Quantification? Latent Density Models for Uncertainty Categorization [68.15353480798244]
  Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is essential for creating trustworthy machine learning models. Recent years have seen a steep rise in UQ methods that can flag suspicious examples. We propose a framework for categorizing uncertain examples flagged by UQ methods in classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-11T19:47:00Z)
• Approaching Neural Network Uncertainty Realism [53.308409014122816]
  Quantifying or at least upper-bounding uncertainties is vital for safety-critical systems such as autonomous vehicles. We evaluate uncertainty realism -- a strict quality criterion -- with a Mahalanobis distance-based statistical test. We adopt it to the automotive domain and show that it significantly improves uncertainty realism compared to a plain encoder-decoder model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-08T11:56:12Z)
• Pitfalls of In-Domain Uncertainty Estimation and Ensembling in Deep Learning [70.72363097550483]
  In this study, we focus on in-domain uncertainty for image classification. To provide more insight in this study, we introduce the deep ensemble equivalent score (DEE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-15T23:28:19Z)
• Confounding-Robust Policy Evaluation in Infinite-Horizon Reinforcement Learning [70.01650994156797]
  Off- evaluation of sequential decision policies from observational data is necessary in batch reinforcement learning such as education healthcare. We develop an approach that estimates the bounds of a given policy. We prove convergence to the sharp bounds as we collect more confounded data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-11T16:18:14Z)
• Uncertainty-Based Out-of-Distribution Classification in Deep Reinforcement Learning [17.10036674236381]
  Wrong predictions for out-of-distribution data can cause safety critical situations in machine learning systems. We propose a framework for uncertainty-based OOD classification: UBOOD. We show that UBOOD produces reliable classification results when combined with ensemble-based estimators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-31T09:52:49Z)

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.