Papers › REPEAT: Improving Uncertainty Estimation in Representation Learning Explainability

REPEAT: Improving Uncertainty Estimation in Representation Learning Explainability

11 Dec 2024arXiv:2412.08513archive 2025-07-28

Kristoffer K. Wickstrøm, Thea Brüsch, Michael C. Kampffmeyer, Robert Jenssen

Incorporating uncertainty is crucial to provide trustworthy explanations of deep learning models. Recent works have demonstrated how uncertainty modeling can be particularly important in the unsupervised field of representation learning explainable artificial intelligence (R-XAI). Current R-XAI methods provide uncertainty by measuring variability in the importance score. However, they fail to provide meaningful estimates of whether a pixel is certainly important or not. In this work, we propose a new R-XAI method called REPEAT that addresses the key question of whether or not a pixel is \textit{certainly} important. REPEAT leverages the stochasticity of current R-XAI methods to produce multiple estimates of importance, thus considering each pixel in an image as a Bernoulli random variable that is either important or unimportant. From these Bernoulli random variables we can directly estimate the importance of a pixel and its associated certainty, thus enabling users to determine certainty in pixel importance. Our extensive evaluation shows that REPEAT gives certainty estimates that are more intuitive, better at detecting out-of-distribution data, and more concise.

PaperPDFCode

Code

wickstrom/repeat officialmentioned in paper report

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

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Explainable artificial intelligenceRepresentation Learning

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

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