δ-CLUE: Diverse Sets of Explanations for Uncertainty Estimates
Open accessAbstract
To interpret uncertainty estimates from differentiable probabilistic models, recent work has proposed generating Counterfactual Latent Uncertainty Explanations (CLUEs). However, for a single input, such approaches could output a variety of explanations due to the lack of constraints placed on the explanation. Here we augment the original CLUE approach, to provide what we call $δ$-CLUE. CLUE indicates $\it{one}$ way to change an input, while remaining on the data manifold, such that the model becomes more confident about its prediction. We instead return a $\it{set}$ of plausible CLUEs: multiple, diverse inputs that are within a $δ$ ball of the original input in latent space, all yielding confident predictions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This class of approach opens avenues for stakeholders to qualitatively evaluate if their models' reasons for uncertainty align with their own intuitions.
“This class of approach opens avenues for stakeholders to qualitatively evaluate if their models' reasons for uncertainty align with their own intuitions [73].”
From Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty (2021) · cites this paper as [73]
The Introduction (p. 1) says multiple explanations can help practitioners understand why an input was uncertain, and the Conclusion (p. 4) says δ-CLUE can help them understand an input’s ambiguity. The paper does not specifically discuss stakeholders comparing the model’s reasons for uncertainty with their own intuitions. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Getting a CLUE: A Method for Explaining Uncertainty Estimates
Antorán, J., Bhatt, U., Adel, T., Weller, A., & Hernández-Lobato, J. M. (2021) · Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository · doi:10.17863/cam.69929 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Serena Booth, Yilun Zhou, Ankit Shah, and Julie Shah. Bayes-TrEx: Model transparency by example. arXiv e-prints , pp. arXiv-2002, 2020.
- Stephen Boyd, Stephen P Boyd, and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex optimization . Cambridge university press, 2004.
- Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2015.
- Divas Grover and Behrad Toghi. MNIST dataset classification utilizing k-nn classifier with modified sliding-window metric. In Science and Information Conference , pp. 583-591. Springer, 2019.
- Oleg Ivanov, Michael Figurnov, and Dmitry Vetrov. Variational autoencoder with arbitrary conditioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02382 , 2018. · arXiv
- Shalmali Joshi, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Been Kim, and Joydeep Ghosh. xGEMs: Generating examplars to explain black-box models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.08867 , 2018. · arXiv
- Rafael Poyiadzi, Kacper Sokol, Raul Santos-Rodriguez, Tijl De Bie, and Peter Flach. Face: feasible and actionable counterfactual explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pp. 344-350, 2020.
- Chris Russell. Efficient search for diverse coherent explanations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pp. 20-28, 2019.
- Kilian Q Weinberger and Lawrence K Saul. Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification. Journal of machine learning research , 10(2), 2009.
- Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 586-595, 2018.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty
Bhatt, U., Antorán, J., Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., Sattigeri, P., Fogliato, R., Melançon, G., Krishnan, R., Stanley, J., Tickoo, O., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462571 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Ley, D., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2104.06323
- OpenAlex
- W3154771717
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- uncertainty estimation, counterfactual explanations, explanation diversity, data manifold, latent space perturbation, model confidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
