Beyond Explaining Predictions: Logic-Based Explanations for Confidence in Machine Learning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10347v1
• Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2026 02:55:55 GMT
• Title: Beyond Explaining Predictions: Logic-Based Explanations for Confidence in Machine Learning Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce the concept of Minimum Confidence Threshold (MCT), which quantifies the weakest confidence guarantee provided by an abductive explanation.<n>We propose confidence-aware abductive explanations, which preserve not only the predicted class but also a user-specified confidence guarantee.
• Score: 1.1470070927586018
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning is increasingly used in critical domains, where both predictions and their associated confidence levels influence important decisions. To enhance transparency in such scenarios, it is important to understand why a model is confident or uncertain about its predictions. Recent logic-based approaches provide abductive explanations, minimal subsets of features sufficient to preserve the predicted class, with correctness guarantees. However, these methods focus solely on classification behavior and may produce explanations that cover instances with low predictive confidence. In this work, we introduce the concept of Minimum Confidence Threshold (MCT), which quantifies the weakest confidence guarantee provided by an abductive explanation. Building upon this concept, we propose confidence-aware abductive explanations, which preserve not only the predicted class but also a user-specified confidence guarantee. We formulate MCT computation as an optimization problem and introduce an algorithm for generating minimal explanations that satisfy a desired confidence threshold. We evaluate the proposed framework on boosted trees for binary classification, although the approach is applicable to other machine learning models that provide confidence scores. Experimental results show that traditional abductive explanations often provide substantially weaker confidence guarantees than the confidence associated with the explained instance itself. In contrast, confidence-aware explanations consistently improve the minimum confidence guaranteed by an explanation while requiring only a modest increase in explanation length. These properties make the proposed approach particularly suitable for applications where both predictive correctness and confidence are essential for trustworthy decision making.

Related papers

• Thinking by Subtraction: Confidence-Driven Contrastive Decoding for LLM Reasoning [58.331709210563616]
  Thinking by Subtraction is a confidence-driven contrastive decoding approach.<n>A small subset of low-confidence tokens disproportionately contributes to reasoning errors and unnecessary output expansion.<n>Our method, Confidence-Driven Contrastive Decoding, detects low-confidence tokens during decoding and intervenes at these positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T14:13:22Z)
• ConfTuner: Training Large Language Models to Express Their Confidence Verbally [58.63318088243125]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as science, law, and healthcare.<n>LLMs are often observed to generate incorrect answers with high confidence, a phenomenon known as "overconfidence"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:25:32Z)
• Mind the Generation Process: Fine-Grained Confidence Estimation During LLM Generation [63.49409574310576]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit overconfidence, assigning high confidence scores to incorrect predictions.<n>We introduce FineCE, a novel confidence estimation method that delivers accurate, fine-grained confidence scores during text generation.<n>Our code and all baselines used in the paper are available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-16T13:29:35Z)
• Network Inversion for Generating Confidently Classified Counterfeits [11.599035626374409]
  In vision classification, generating inputs that elicit confident predictions is key to understanding model behavior and reliability.<n>We extend network inversion techniques to generate Confidently Classified Counterfeits (CCCs)<n>CCCs offer a model-centric perspective on confidence, revealing that models can assign high confidence to entirely synthetic, out-of-distribution inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T03:26:49Z)
• Beyond Uncertainty Quantification: Learning Uncertainty for Trust-Informed Neural Network Decisions - A Case Study in COVID-19 Classification [7.383605511698832]
  Reliable uncertainty quantification is critical in high-stakes applications, such as medical diagnosis.<n>Traditional uncertainty quantification methods rely on a predefined confidence threshold to classify predictions as confident or uncertain.<n>This approach assumes that predictions exceeding the threshold are trustworthy, while those below it are uncertain, without explicitly assessing the correctness of high-confidence predictions.<n>This study proposes an uncertainty-aware stacked neural network, which extends conventional uncertainty quantification by learning when predictions should be trusted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T04:20:12Z)
• Automated Trustworthiness Testing for Machine Learning Classifiers [3.3423762257383207]
  This paper proposes TOWER, the first technique to automatically create trustworthiness oracles that determine whether text classifier predictions are trustworthy. Our hypothesis is that a prediction is trustworthy if the words in its explanation are semantically related to the predicted class. The results show that TOWER can detect a decrease in trustworthiness as noise increases, but is not effective when evaluated against the human-labeled dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T20:25:05Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• When Does Confidence-Based Cascade Deferral Suffice? [69.28314307469381]
  Cascades are a classical strategy to enable inference cost to vary adaptively across samples. A deferral rule determines whether to invoke the next classifier in the sequence, or to terminate prediction. Despite being oblivious to the structure of the cascade, confidence-based deferral often works remarkably well in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T04:13:57Z)
• 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)
• MACEst: The reliable and trustworthy Model Agnostic Confidence Estimator [0.17188280334580192]
  We argue that any confidence estimates based upon standard machine learning point prediction algorithms are fundamentally flawed. We present MACEst, a Model Agnostic Confidence Estimator, which provides reliable and trustworthy confidence estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T14:34:06Z)
• Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainability [44.9824285459365]
  Black box explanations are increasingly being employed to establish model credibility in high-stakes settings. prior work demonstrates that explanations generated by state-of-the-art techniques are inconsistent, unstable, and provide very little insight into their correctness and reliability. We develop a novel Bayesian framework for generating local explanations along with their associated uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-11T22:52:21Z)

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.