Jul 2026· International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications· Vol 17, pp. 55-75· 0 citations· 35 references
TL;DR
The practically actionable issue that should be addressed when a prediction is wrong is addressed, which is based on the following caveat: Rather than explaining a prediction which is of little-to-no impact given the relatively high likelihood that it is incorrect, the issue of explaining the reasons for the high uncertainty is addressed.
Abstract
The need to interpret the predictions obtained by machine learning models has become ever more important over the last two decades, mainly due to the omnipotent potential of such models, particularly deep learning models, to reach unprecedented levels of accuracy and high levels of performance. Several papers have been previously proposed which aim at explaining the predictions of automated decisionmaking systems, particularly those based on machine learning. One question that commonly arises upon the practical use of these explanations is whether the corresponding predictions are correct in the first place. This usually comes along with the correlated issue of the degree of uncertainty involved within such predictions. In case the prediction is wrong, or at least highly uncertain, is it worth finding an explanation for? In this work, we aim to tackle the practically actionable issue that should be addressed when such a situation arises, which is based on the following caveat: Rather than explaining a prediction which is of little-to-no impact given the relatively high likelihood that it is incorrect, we address the more applicable issue of explaining the reasons for the high uncertainty. We do so via highlighting parts of the input data which are believed to be the most responsible for such a high predictive uncertainty. Our method is based on information-theoretic computations where entropy is utilised as a proxy to evaluate the predictive uncertainty, simultaneously while performing the optimisation. This ultimately leads to finding a similar input which correspondingly produces an output with lower predictive uncertainty (compared to the original input). We empirically demonstrate the impact of the method in identifying the input components most responsible for high predictive uncertainty by conducting experiments on two tabular datasets (Titanic and Pima Indians Diabetes) as well as an image dataset (Fashion-MNIST).
Uncertainty estimate is redefined as essential to machine learning performance rather than as a byproduct, and a systematic research program centered on unified theoretical frameworks, uniform evaluation procedures, domain-sensitive calibration, and scalable uncertainty-aware structures is suggested.
Precious Chidum Amadi· International Journal of Com...· 0 citations
Combining predictions from different models can improve performance at machine learning tasks, but the training of the individual models and the rule used to combine them are typically chosen separately, and by ad hoc means. Recent advances in distributional optimisation (i.e. where the optimisation occurs over the set...
Cong-Ye Wang, Yan-Kai Lin, Zhe-Yang Shen et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces a model-agnostic and explanation-agnostic index for quantifying the temporal consistency of automated explanations, and empirically demonstrates that the proposed index facilitates the quantification and localization of temporal instability in explanation streams.
M. Ostrowski, Katarzyna Kaczmarek-Majer, J. Alonso-Moral· 0 citations
Explanations of machine learning models are usually judged by criteria that are hard to compare. We propose a simpler test: if an explanation really describes how a model uses its features, it should be possible to rebuild the model's predictions from it. We turn each explanation into a predictor by reading each featur...
This work replaces true next-observation targets with in-distribution mismatched observations and introduces a setting that replaces prediction-based rewards with independent random signals, which expands task coverage even when the reward carries no environment information.
Xin-Yu Che, Hang Yan, Yan-Chen Liu et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.