mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Calibrated Explanations: with Uncertainty Information and Counterfactuals

arXiv 2305.02305 ↗First posted 3 May 2023cs.AI cs.LGcited by 16

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While local explanations for AI models can offer insights into individual predictions, such as feature importance, they are plagued by issues like instability. The unreliability of feature weights, often skewed due to poorly calibrated ML models, deepens these challenges. Moreover, the critical aspect of feature importance uncertainty remains mostly unaddressed in Explainable AI (XAI). The novel feature importance explanation method presented in this paper, called Calibrated Explanations (CE), is designed to tackle these issues head-on. Built on the foundation of Venn-Abers, CE not only calibrates the underlying model but also delivers reliable feature importance explanations with an exact definition of the feature weights. CE goes beyond conventional solutions by addressing output uncertainty. It accomplishes this by providing uncertainty quantification for both feature weights and the model's probability estimates. Additionally, CE is model-agnostic, featuring easily comprehensible conditional rules and the ability to generate counterfactual explanations with embedded uncertainty quantification. Results from an evaluation with 25 benchmark datasets underscore the efficacy of CE, making it stand as a fast, reliable, stable, and robust solution.

Key facts. Cited by 16 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 May 2023.

Builds on

25 of 61 references.

References · 25

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,552
  4. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
  5. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
  6. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
  7. 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 614
  8. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 314
  9. 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 305
  10. 2018Metrics for Explainable AI: Challenges and Prospectscited by 260
  11. 2020Opportunities and Challenges in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Surveycited by 254
  12. 2019Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisionscited by 204
13 more
  1. 2018Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systemscited by 166
  2. 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 139
  3. 2020Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertaintycited by 129
  4. 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 126
  5. 2020Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainabilitycited by 125
  6. 2020Getting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimatescited by 92
  7. 2018Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanationscited by 83
  8. 2019Explanation in Human-AI Systems: A Literature Meta-Review, Synopsis of Key Ideas and Publications, and Bibliography for Explainable AIcited by 63
  9. 2021S-LIME: Stabilized-LIME for Model Explanationcited by 52
  10. 2020Post-hoc explanation of black-box classifiers using confident itemsetscited by 21
  11. 2015Large-scale probabilistic predictors with and without guarantees of validitycited by 18
  12. 2019A study of data and label shift in the LIME frameworkcited by 17
  13. 2022A Meta Survey of Quality Evaluation Criteria in Explanation Methodscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 7; 2026: 4.

16 papers.

Sort: