Paper
No Single Metric Tells the Whole Story: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Uncertainty Attributions
Authors
Emily Schiller, Teodor Chiaburu, Marco Zullich, Luca Longo
Abstract
Research on explainable AI (XAI) has frequently focused on explaining model predictions. More recently, methods have been proposed to explain prediction uncertainty by attributing it to input features (uncertainty attributions). However, the evaluation of these methods remains inconsistent as studies rely on heterogeneous proxy tasks and metrics, hindering comparability. We address this by aligning uncertainty attributions with the well-established Co-12 framework for XAI evaluation. We propose concrete implementations for the correctness, consistency, continuity, and compactness properties. Additionally, we introduce conveyance, a property tailored to uncertainty attributions that evaluates whether controlled increases in epistemic uncertainty reliably propagate to feature-level attributions. We demonstrate our evaluation framework with eight metrics across combinations of uncertainty quantification and feature attribution methods on tabular and image data. Our experiments show that gradient-based methods consistently outperform perturbation-based approaches in consistency and conveyance, while Monte-Carlo dropconnect outperforms Monte-Carlo dropout in most metrics. Although most metrics rank the methods consistently across samples, inter-method agreement remains low. This suggests no single metric sufficiently evaluates uncertainty attribution quality. The proposed evaluation framework contributes to the body of knowledge by establishing a foundation for systematic comparison and development of uncertainty attribution methods.
Metadata
Related papers
Vibe Coding XR: Accelerating AI + XR Prototyping with XR Blocks and Gemini
Ruofei Du, Benjamin Hersh, David Li, Nels Numan, Xun Qian, Yanhe Chen, Zhongy... • 2026-03-25
Comparing Developer and LLM Biases in Code Evaluation
Aditya Mittal, Ryan Shar, Zichu Wu, Shyam Agarwal, Tongshuang Wu, Chris Donah... • 2026-03-25
The Stochastic Gap: A Markovian Framework for Pre-Deployment Reliability and Oversight-Cost Auditing in Agentic Artificial Intelligence
Biplab Pal, Santanu Bhattacharya • 2026-03-25
Retrieval Improvements Do Not Guarantee Better Answers: A Study of RAG for AI Policy QA
Saahil Mathur, Ryan David Rittner, Vedant Ajit Thakur, Daniel Stuart Schiff, ... • 2026-03-25
MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
Zhuo Li, Yupeng Zhang, Pengyu Cheng, Jiajun Song, Mengyu Zhou, Hao Li, Shujie... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24524v1</id>\n <title>No Single Metric Tells the Whole Story: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for Uncertainty Attributions</title>\n <updated>2026-03-25T17:02:13Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24524v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.24524v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>Research on explainable AI (XAI) has frequently focused on explaining model predictions. More recently, methods have been proposed to explain prediction uncertainty by attributing it to input features (uncertainty attributions). However, the evaluation of these methods remains inconsistent as studies rely on heterogeneous proxy tasks and metrics, hindering comparability. We address this by aligning uncertainty attributions with the well-established Co-12 framework for XAI evaluation. We propose concrete implementations for the correctness, consistency, continuity, and compactness properties. Additionally, we introduce conveyance, a property tailored to uncertainty attributions that evaluates whether controlled increases in epistemic uncertainty reliably propagate to feature-level attributions. We demonstrate our evaluation framework with eight metrics across combinations of uncertainty quantification and feature attribution methods on tabular and image data. Our experiments show that gradient-based methods consistently outperform perturbation-based approaches in consistency and conveyance, while Monte-Carlo dropconnect outperforms Monte-Carlo dropout in most metrics. Although most metrics rank the methods consistently across samples, inter-method agreement remains low. This suggests no single metric sufficiently evaluates uncertainty attribution quality. The proposed evaluation framework contributes to the body of knowledge by establishing a foundation for systematic comparison and development of uncertainty attribution methods.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.LG'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.AI'/>\n <published>2026-03-25T17:02:13Z</published>\n <arxiv:comment>Accepted at the Fourth World Conference on Explainable Artificial Intelligence, xAI 2026, Fortaleza, Brazil, July 1-3, 2026</arxiv:comment>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.LG'/>\n <author>\n <name>Emily Schiller</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Teodor Chiaburu</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Marco Zullich</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Luca Longo</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}