mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

UbiQTree: Uncertainty Quantification in XAI with Tree Ensembles

arXiv 2508.09639 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2025cs.AIcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques, such as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), have become essential tools for interpreting complex ensemble tree-based models, especially in high-stakes domains such as healthcare analytics. However, SHAP values are usually treated as point estimates, which disregards the inherent and ubiquitous uncertainty in predictive models and data. This uncertainty has two primary sources: aleatoric and epistemic. The aleatoric uncertainty, which reflects the irreducible noise in the data. The epistemic uncertainty, which arises from a lack of data. In this work, we propose an approach for decomposing uncertainty in SHAP values into aleatoric, epistemic, and entanglement components. This approach integrates Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and hypothesis sampling via Dirichlet processes over tree ensembles. We validate the method across three real-world use cases with descriptive statistical analyses that provide insight into the nature of epistemic uncertainty embedded in SHAP explanations. The experimentations enable to provide more comprehensive understanding of the reliability and interpretability of SHAP-based attributions. This understanding can guide the development of robust decision-making processes and the refinement of models in high-stakes applications. Through our experiments with multiple datasets, we concluded that features with the highest SHAP values are not necessarily the most stable. This epistemic uncertainty can be reduced through better, more representative data and following appropriate or case-desired model development techniques. Tree-based models, especially bagging, facilitate the effective quantification of epistemic uncertainty.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 96 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.

Builds on

21 of 96 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  3. 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 614
  4. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 200
  5. 2020Logic Tensor Networkscited by 199
  6. 2020Explainable deep learning models in medical image analysiscited by 111
  7. 2023A Perspective on Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods: SHAP and LIMEcited by 42
  8. 2023Explaining Predictive Uncertainty with Information Theoretic Shapley Valuescited by 36
  9. 2021On the Complexity of SHAP-Score-Based Explanations: Tractability via Knowledge Compilation and Non-Approximability Resultscited by 32
  10. 2024Beyond TreeSHAP: Efficient Computation of Any-Order Shapley Interactions for Tree Ensemblescited by 31
  11. 2021RKHS-SHAP: Shapley Values for Kernel Methodscited by 30
  12. 2024A Nested Model for AI Design and Validationcited by 8
9 more
  1. 2021Comparing interpretability and explainability for feature selectioncited by 6
  2. 2025Uncertainty Propagation in XAI: A Comparison of Analytical and Empirical Estimatorscited by 6
  3. 2025Reducing Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty through Multi-modal Data Acquisitioncited by 5
  4. 2024AI Readiness in Healthcare through Storytelling XAIcited by 4
  5. 2024Explainable artificial intelligence in breast cancer detection and risk prediction: A systematic scoping reviewcited by 3
  6. 2023Explaining and visualizing black-box models through counterfactual pathscited by 2
  7. 2024The Distributional Uncertainty of the SHAP score in Explainable Machine Learningcited by 1
  8. 2025SHAP-Integrated Convolutional Diagnostic Networks for Feature-Selective Medical Analysiscited by 1
  9. 2025Surrogate Interpretable Graph for Random Decision Forestscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

4 papers.