Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Sanity Checks for Explanation Uncertainty

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.17212 v1 pith:W2T4QSMN submitted 2024-03-25 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords uncertaintyexplanationtestsexplanationschecksmethodmethodssanity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Explanations for machine learning models can be hard to interpret or be wrong. Combining an explanation method with an uncertainty estimation method produces explanation uncertainty. Evaluating explanation uncertainty is difficult. In this paper we propose sanity checks for uncertainty explanation methods, where a weight and data randomization tests are defined for explanations with uncertainty, allowing for quick tests to combinations of uncertainty and explanation methods. We experimentally show the validity and effectiveness of these tests on the CIFAR10 and California Housing datasets, noting that Ensembles seem to consistently pass both tests with Guided Backpropagation, Integrated Gradients, and LIME explanations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CrackedPDFs: A Controlled Benchmark for Hidden Prompt Injection in PDFs

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A document-aware hybrid detector that inspects PDF structure before text flattening outperforms text-only guardrails and structural-only models on a new 29,322-file controlled hidden-prompt-injection benchmark.

Pith tools