mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Informative Perturbation Selection for Uncertainty-Aware Post-hoc Explanations

arXiv 2603.14894 ↗First posted 16 Mar 2026cs.LG cs.AI stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Trust and ethical concerns due to the widespread deployment of opaque machine learning (ML) models motivating the need for reliable model explanations. Post-hoc model-agnostic explanation methods addresses this challenge by learning a surrogate model that approximates the behavior of the deployed black-box ML model in the locality of a sample of interest. In post-hoc scenarios, neither the underlying model parameters nor the training are available, and hence, this local neighborhood must be constructed by generating perturbed inputs in the neighborhood of the sample of interest, and its corresponding model predictions. We propose Expected Active Gain for Local Explanations (textttEAGLE), a post-hoc model-agnostic explanation framework that formulates perturbation selection as an information-theoretic active learning problem. By adaptively sampling perturbations that maximize the expected information gain, textttEAGLE efficiently learns a linear surrogate explainable model while producing feature importance scores along with the uncertainty/confidence estimates. Theoretically, we establish that cumulative information gain scales as O(d log t), where d is the feature dimension and t represents the number of samples, and that the sample complexity grows linearly with d and logarithmically with the confidence parameter 1/δ. Empirical results on tabular and image datasets corroborate our theoretical findings and demonstrate that textttEAGLE improves explanation reproducibility across runs, achieves higher neighborhood stability, and improves perturbation sample quality as compared to state-of-the-art baselines such as Tilia, US-LIME, GLIME and BayesLIME.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.

Builds on

16 of 33 references.

References · 16

  1. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,352
  4. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 314
  5. 2020Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainabilitycited by 125
  6. 2020Getting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimatescited by 92
  7. 2020BayLIME: Bayesian Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanationscited by 51
  8. 2024Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertaintycited by 42
  9. 2023GLIME: General, Stable and Local LIME Explanationcited by 21
  10. 2021Explaining Bayesian Neural Networkscited by 18
  11. 2023Calibrated Explanations: with Uncertainty Information and Counterfactualscited by 16
  12. 2021Select Wisely and Explain: Active Learning and Probabilistic Local Post-hoc Explainabilitycited by 12
4 more
  1. 2025Unveil Sources of Uncertainty: Feature Contribution to Conformal Prediction Intervalscited by 5
  2. 2021Making Things Explainable vs Explaining: Requirements and Challenges under the GDPRcited by 4
  3. 2023CLIMAX: An exploration of Classifier-Based Contrastive Explanationscited by 1
  4. 2024Fast Calibrated Explanations: Efficient and Uncertainty-Aware Explanations for Machine Learning Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.