mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Trustworthiness Score to Evaluate DNN Predictions

arXiv 2301.08839 ↗First posted 21 Jan 2023cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Due to the black box nature of deep neural networks (DNN), the continuous validation of DNN during operation is challenging with the absence of a human monitor. As a result this makes it difficult for developers and regulators to gain confidence in the deployment of autonomous systems employing DNN. It is critical for safety during operation to know when DNN's predictions are trustworthy or suspicious. With the absence of a human monitor, the basic approach is to use the model's output confidence score to assess if predictions are trustworthy or suspicious. However, the model's confidence score is a result of computations coming from a black box, therefore lacks transparency and makes it challenging to automatedly credit trustworthiness to predictions. We introduce the trustworthiness score (TS), a simple metric that provides a more transparent and effective way of providing confidence in DNN predictions compared to model's confidence score. The metric quantifies the trustworthiness in a prediction by checking for the existence of certain features in the predictions made by the DNN. We also use the underlying idea of the TS metric, to provide a suspiciousness score (SS) in the overall input frame to help in the detection of suspicious frames where false negatives exist. We conduct a case study using YOLOv5 on persons detection to demonstrate our method and usage of TS and SS. The case study shows that using our method consistently improves the precision of predictions compared to relying on model confidence score alone, for both 1) approving of trustworthy predictions (~20% improvement) and 2) detecting suspicious frames (~5% improvement).

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jan 2023.

Builds on

24 of 46 references.

References · 24

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2015You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detectioncited by 4,829
  6. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
  7. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  8. 2020A Review of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning: Techniques, Applications and Challengescited by 813
  9. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
  10. 2019MediaPipe: A Framework for Building Perception Pipelinescited by 572
  11. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
  12. 2019Understanding Deep Networks via Extremal Perturbations and Smooth Maskscited by 257
12 more
  1. 2018To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifiercited by 205
  2. 2021Machine Learning with a Reject Option: A surveycited by 107
  3. 2022Plex: Towards Reliability using Pretrained Large Model Extensionscited by 102
  4. 2020Getting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimatescited by 92
  5. 2020Trustworthy AIcited by 62
  6. 2021Guidance on the Assurance of Machine Learning in Autonomous Systems (AMLAS)cited by 40
  7. 2019Uncertainty Estimation in One-Stage Object Detectioncited by 36
  8. 2015Max-Margin Object Detectioncited by 15
  9. 2022On Specifying for Trustworthinesscited by 8
  10. 2021To Trust or Not to Trust a Regressor: Estimating and Explaining Trustworthiness of Regression Predictionscited by 5
  11. 2021Safety Validation of Autonomous Vehicles using Assertion Checkingcited by 1
  12. 2022DIRA: Dynamic Domain Incremental Regularised Adaptationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.