Why Uncertainty Calibration Matters for Reliable Perturbation-based Explanations

Thomas Decker, Volker Tresp, Florian Buettner
6/24/2025
cs.LGcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Perturbation-based explanations are widely utilized to enhance the transparency of modern machine-learning models. However, their reliability is often compromised by the unknown model behavior under the specific perturbations used. This paper investigates the relationship between uncertainty calibration - the alignment of model confidence with actual accuracy - and perturbation-based explanations. We show that models frequently produce unreliable probability estimates when subjected to explainability-specific perturbations and theoretically prove that this directly undermines explanation quality. To address this, we introduce ReCalX, a novel approach to recalibrate models for improved perturbation-based explanations while preserving their original predictions. Experiments on popular computer vision models demonstrate that our calibration strategy produces explanations that are more aligned with human perception and actual object locations.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{decker2025uncertainty,
  title  = {Why Uncertainty Calibration Matters for Reliable Perturbation-based Explanations},
  author = {Thomas Decker and Volker Tresp and Florian Buettner},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2506.19630},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19630v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2506.19630.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2506.19630)

Discussion