mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Rigorous Interpretations: a Formalisation of Feature Attribution

arXiv 2104.12437 ↗First posted 26 Apr 2021cs.LG stat.MLcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Feature attribution is often loosely presented as the process of selecting a subset of relevant features as a rationale of a prediction. Task-dependent by nature, precise definitions of "relevance" encountered in the literature are however not always consistent. This lack of clarity stems from the fact that we usually do not have access to any notion of ground-truth attribution and from a more general debate on what good interpretations are. In this paper we propose to formalise feature selection/attribution based on the concept of relaxed functional dependence. In particular, we extend our notions to the instance-wise setting and derive necessary properties for candidate selection solutions, while leaving room for task-dependence. By computing ground-truth attributions on synthetic datasets, we evaluate many state-of-the-art attribution methods and show that, even when optimised, some fail to verify the proposed properties and provide wrong solutions.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2021.

Builds on

25 of 47 references.

References · 25

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  4. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
  5. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,552
  6. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
  7. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
  8. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,109
  9. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
  10. 2019TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learningcited by 648
  11. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  12. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 389
13 more
  1. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 344
  2. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 333
  3. 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
  4. 2019Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blamecited by 216
  5. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 200
  6. 2019When Explanations Lie: Why Many Modified BP Attributions Failcited by 92
  7. 2020How does this interaction affect me? Interpretable attribution for feature interactionscited by 73
  8. 2019Purifying Interaction Effects with the Functional ANOVA: An Efficient Algorithm for Recovering Identifiable Additive Modelscited by 42
  9. 2019Improving performance of deep learning models with axiomatic attribution priors and expected gradientscited by 32
  10. 2020Feature Removal Is a Unifying Principle for Model Explanation Methodscited by 21
  11. 2020Challenging common interpretability assumptions in feature attribution explanationscited by 11
  12. 2020Explaining Deep Neural Networkscited by 9
  13. 2020Making Neural Networks Interpretable with Attribution: Application to Implicit Signals Predictioncited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 2.

11 papers.