mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

To Trust or Not to Trust a Regressor: Estimating and Explaining Trustworthiness of Regression Predictions

arXiv 2104.06982 ↗First posted 14 Apr 2021cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In hybrid human-AI systems, users need to decide whether or not to trust an algorithmic prediction while the true error in the prediction is unknown. To accommodate such settings, we introduce RETRO-VIZ, a method for (i) estimating and (ii) explaining trustworthiness of regression predictions. It consists of RETRO, a quantitative estimate of the trustworthiness of a prediction, and VIZ, a visual explanation that helps users identify the reasons for the (lack of) trustworthiness of a prediction. We find that RETRO-scores negatively correlate with prediction error across 117 experimental settings, indicating that RETRO provides a useful measure to distinguish trustworthy predictions from untrustworthy ones. In a user study with 41 participants, we find that VIZ-explanations help users identify whether a prediction is trustworthy or not: on average, 95.1% of participants correctly select the more trustworthy prediction, given a pair of predictions. In addition, an average of 75.6% of participants can accurately describe why a prediction seems to be (not) trustworthy. Finally, we find that the vast majority of users subjectively experience RETRO-VIZ as a useful tool to assess the trustworthiness of algorithmic predictions.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Apr 2021.

Builds on

24 of 42 references.

References · 24

  1. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  4. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  5. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  6. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,888
  7. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
  8. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  9. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  10. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  11. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
  12. 2018Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospectscited by 257
12 more
  1. 2017Deep Learning for Case-Based Reasoning through Prototypes: A Neural Network that Explains Its Predictionscited by 234
  2. 2019Explainable Machine Learning in Deploymentcited by 210
  3. 2018To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifiercited by 205
  4. 2018Deep k-Nearest Neighbors: Towards Confident, Interpretable and Robust Deep Learningcited by 203
  5. 2019"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanationscited by 111
  6. 2020Getting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimatescited by 92
  7. 2019The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologiescited by 78
  8. 2018Towards Accountable AI: Hybrid Human-Machine Analyses for Characterizing System Failurecited by 49
  9. 2019Why Does My Model Fail? Contrastive Local Explanations for Retail Forecastingcited by 31
  10. 2018Investigating Human + Machine Complementarity for Recidivism Predictionscited by 19
  11. 2019Accurate Layerwise Interpretable Competence Estimationcited by 10
  12. 2020Harnessing Explanations to Bridge AI and Humanscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 2.

5 papers.