REVIEW 2 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
Sanity Checks for Explanation Uncertainty
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
CrackedPDFs: A Controlled Benchmark for Hidden Prompt Injection in PDFs
A 29,322-PDF controlled benchmark shows that a hybrid structural-plus-text detector finds hidden PDF prompt injections under paired evaluation (0.960 F1; 100% pair ranking), while text-only baselines fail.
-
CrackedPDFs: A Controlled Benchmark for Hidden Prompt Injection in PDFs
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.