Papers › Boundary-Aware Uncertainty for Feature Attribution Explainers

Boundary-Aware Uncertainty for Feature Attribution Explainers

5 Oct 2022arXiv:2210.02419archive 2025-07-28

Davin Hill, Aria Masoomi, Max Torop, Sandesh Ghimire, Jennifer Dy

Post-hoc explanation methods have become a critical tool for understanding black-box classifiers in high-stakes applications. However, high-performing classifiers are often highly nonlinear and can exhibit complex behavior around the decision boundary, leading to brittle or misleading local explanations. Therefore there is an impending need to quantify the uncertainty of such explanation methods in order to understand when explanations are trustworthy. In this work we propose the Gaussian Process Explanation UnCertainty (GPEC) framework, which generates a unified uncertainty estimate combining decision boundary-aware uncertainty with explanation function approximation uncertainty. We introduce a novel geodesic-based kernel, which captures the complexity of the target black-box decision boundary. We show theoretically that the proposed kernel similarity increases with decision boundary complexity. The proposed framework is highly flexible; it can be used with any black-box classifier and feature attribution method. Empirical results on multiple tabular and image datasets show that the GPEC uncertainty estimate improves understanding of explanations as compared to existing methods.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

15 samples harvested; 2 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 13 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 15 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from davinhill/gpec. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections