# Uncertainty Gating for Cost-Aware Explainable Artificial Intelligence

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29915 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.29915/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 30 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 30)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02142/) (2015)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.04644/) (2016)
- [What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04977/) (2017)
- [Adversarial examples in the physical world](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.02533/) (2016)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03825/) (2017)
- [Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09457/) (2019)
- [Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.06321/) (2015)
- [Methods for Interpreting and Understanding Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07979/) (2017)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02114/) (2020)
- [Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.05030/) (2020)
- [NGBoost: Natural Gradient Boosting for Probabilistic Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.03225/) (2019)
- [Uncertainty in Gradient Boosting via Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.10562/) (2020)
- [BayLIME: Bayesian Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.03058/) (2020)
- [Adversarial attacks and defenses in explainable artificial intelligence: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06123/) (2023)
- [Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty with Random Forests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.00893/) (2020)
- ["Are You Really Sure?" Understanding the Effects of Human Self-Confidence Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09552/) (2024)
- [Evaluating the Stability of Semantic Concept Representations in CNNs for Robust Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14864/) (2023)
- [Quantifying and Explaining Machine Learning Uncertainty in Predictive Process Monitoring: An Operations Research Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06412/) (2023)
- [Explaining Predictive Uncertainty by Exposing Second-Order Effects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.17441/) (2024)
- [Uncertainty Propagation in XAI: A Comparison of Analytical and Empirical Estimators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03736/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Post-hoc explanation methods are widely used to interpret black-box predictions, but their generation is often computationally expensive and their reliability is not guaranteed. We propose epistemic uncertainty as a low-cost proxy for explanation reliability: high epistemic uncertainty identifies regions where the decision boundary is poorly defined and where explanations become unstable and unfaithful. This insight enables two complementary use cases: `improving worst-case explanations' (routing samples to cheap or expensive XAI methods based on expected explanation reliability), and `recalling high-quality explanations' (deferring explanation generation for uncertain samples under constrained budget). Across four tabular datasets, five diverse architectures, and four XAI methods, we observe a strong negative correlation between epistemic uncertainty and explanation stability. Further analysis shows that epistemic uncertainty distinguishes not only stable from unstable explanations, but also faithful from unfaithful ones. Experiments on image classification confirm that our findings generalize beyond tabular data.