A Note about: Local Explanation Methods for Deep Neural Networks lack Sensitivity to Parameter Values
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Local explanation methods, also known as attribution methods, attribute a deep network's prediction to its input (cf. Baehrens et al. (2010)). We respond to the claim from Adebayo et al. (2018) that local explanation methods lack sensitivity, i.e., DNNs with randomly-initialized weights produce explanations that are both visually and quantitatively similar to those produced by DNNs with learned weights. Further investigation reveals that their findings are due to two choices in their analysis: (a) ignoring the signs of the attributions; and (b) for integrated gradients (IG), including pixels in their analysis that have zero attributions by choice of the baseline (an auxiliary input relative to which the attributions are computed). When both factors are accounted for, IG attributions for a random network and the actual network are uncorrelated. Our investigation also sheds light on how these issues affect visualizations, although we note that more work is needed to understand how viewers interpret the difference between the random and the actual attributions.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 1.
9 papers.
- 2023The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantuscited by 37
- 2022Shortcomings of Top-Down Randomization-Based Sanity Checks for Evaluations of Deep Neural Network Explanationscited by 22
- 2024Sanity Checks Revisited: An Exploration to Repair the Model Parameter Randomisation Testcited by 9
- 2024A Fresh Look at Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 8
- 2022Towards Improved Input Masking for Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 7
- 2024Expected Grad-CAM: Towards gradient faithfulnesscited by 4
- 2024From Flexibility to Manipulation: The Slippery Slope of XAI Evaluationcited by 4
- 2022Comparing Baseline Shapley and Integrated Gradients for Local Explanation: Some Additional Insightscited by 3
- 2025Tangentially Aligned Integrated Gradients for User-Friendly Explanationscited by 3
- 2025Tangentially Aligned Integrated Gradients for User-Friendly Explanations11 Mar 2025
- 2024From Flexibility to Manipulation: The Slippery Slope of XAI Evaluation7 Dec 2024
- 2024Expected Grad-CAM: Towards gradient faithfulness3 Jun 2024
- 2024A Fresh Look at Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps3 May 2024
- 2024Sanity Checks Revisited: An Exploration to Repair the Model Parameter Randomisation Test12 Jan 2024
- 2023The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus14 Feb 2023
- 2022Towards Improved Input Masking for Convolutional Neural Networks26 Nov 2022
- 2022Shortcomings of Top-Down Randomization-Based Sanity Checks for Evaluations of Deep Neural Network Explanations22 Nov 2022
- 2022Comparing Baseline Shapley and Integrated Gradients for Local Explanation: Some Additional Insights12 Aug 2022