Modern data analysis usually gives a prediction without showing whether the evidence behind it is clear, conflicting, or stable. Two cases can have the same fitted confidence even when one has mostly agreeing evidence and the other has strong support and strong opposition. We propose Signed Evidence Flow (SEF), which combines a fitted prediction rule with signed feature attributions to measure support, opposition, conflict, and perturbation stability. We prove that confidence determines conflict exactly when it also determines total evidence mass, derive the remaining conditional variance, and state when conflict can improve loss prediction beyond confidence and other audit variables. We also connect conflict to geometric decision fragility. Across healthcare, Covertype, black-box, finance, and ten external data sets, conflict sometimes separates risk among predictions that already appear confident. Cross-fitted tests show added error-ranking information beyond confidence and attribution entropy on several data sets, including two large finance tasks. The direction is not universal: in some tasks, lowconflict cases are riskier. We therefore introduce ScopeGate, a held-out permutation diagnostic that checks the direction before SEF is used for review triage. SEF is consequently an audit tool rather than a universal risk score: it describes evidence structure, while an independent calibration sample determines whether that structure is useful in the target population.
Audit risk assessment increasingly benefits from combining heterogeneous evidence sources, yet existing approaches typically produce point predictions without quantifying how well different evidence streams agree. We propose UMAR (Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Agent Risk Assessment), a framework that employs three specialized agents: an MD&A Text Agent, a Financial Ratio Agent, and a CAM Agent, each producing independent risk scores with calibrated uncertainty estimates. An Uncertainty Aggregator based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory fuses these scores while explicitly measuring inter-agent conflict. We evaluate UMAR on a U.S. dataset of 3,200 firm-year observations from SEC 10-K filings (2019-2023), with financial restatement as the target label. Experimental results show that UMAR achieves an AUROC of 0.782 and a PR-AUC of 0.341, outperforming logistic regression, XGBoost, FinBERT, and single-agent and dual-agent LLM baselines. UMAR attains the lowest expected calibration error (ECE = 0.052) among all methods and identifies evidence-conflict patterns that correlate with actual restatement risk, offering auditors potentially actionable and interpretable risk signals.
Perturbation methods explain model decisions by measuring prediction changes under altered inputs, but response magnitude tells us only how much a model reacts, not what that reaction means. The same magnitude can support the final factual-counterfactual difference, oppose it, or arise strongly along the perturbation path yet vanish at the endpoint. We therefore track how the contrast develops as paired inputs are progressively revealed, using the final contrast to interpret the trajectory. We introduce DECAF (Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, And Fragility), which routes aligned, opposed, and endpoint-null responses into evidence E, contradiction C, and fragility F. The decomposition preserves ordinary magnitude exactly, Abs = E + C + F, and is unique under endpoint-relative axioms. Across controlled vision and tabular settings, the three components track independently measured behavior. In a 72-model ImageNet-9 audit, we compare cases with nearly identical response magnitude but different independently measured behaviors. The largest DECAF component agrees with an observed behavior in 96.4% of cases, compared with 35.0% for magnitude alone. Changing only the reveal path increases total response by nearly 80%, yet evidence barely changes while fragility grows by more than 4x. On FunnyBirds and ImageNet-1k, short forward-only DECAF trajectories outperform the tested general-purpose attribution baselines. On a 1B-scale DINOv2 model, a short trajectory matches a strong gradient-based baseline with 4.75x lower wall time and 2.36x lower peak memory.
Confidence calibration has been dominated by the Expected Calibration Error (ECE), a linear metric that counts calibration offset equally regardless of the confidence level at which it occurs. We show that ECE can remain small even under arbitrarily large overconfidence risk, so we propose Calibrated Size Ratio (CSR) instead, an interpretable metric that equals 1 under perfect calibration, from which we derive the risk probability Prisk that quantifies the statistical evidence for overconfidence. We further argue that overconfidence risk assessment must be complemented by a measure of discriminative value: whether the assigned confidences actively distinguish correct from incorrect predictions. We show that confidence-weighted accuracy cwA is the natural such complement, and that confidence-weighting extends to all standard classification metrics. In particular, we prove that the confidence-weighted AUC (cwAUC) captures the information about calibration while the classical AUC cannot. We validate the proposed indicators on several synthetic confidence distributions under multiple controlled calibration profiles and find that CSR separates risky from non-risky assignments. We also test the metrics on fifteen real datasets, with and without post-hoc calibration, and find that standard methods can yield risky confidence profiles.
Fernando Martin-Maroto, Nabil Abderrahaman, Gonzalo G. de Polavieja