# Do not explain without context: addressing the blind spot of model explanations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13787 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.13787/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 45 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 May 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.02685/) (2017)
- [Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.11279/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03292/) (2018)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneously](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.01489/) (2018)
- [Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03888/) (2018)
- [Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.14878/) (2020)
- [Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blame](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.07983/) (2019)
- [Visualizing the Effects of Predictor Variables in Black Box Supervised Learning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.08468/) (2016)
- [Explainable Machine Learning in Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06342/) (2019)
- [Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.11097/) (2020)
- [Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.01831/) (2020)
- [Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00631/) (2020)
- [Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causal problem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13413/) (2019)
- [Debugging Tests for Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.05429/) (2020)
- [True to the Model or True to the Data?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.16234/) (2020)
- [Asymmetric Shapley values: incorporating causal knowledge into model-agnostic explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.06358/) (2019)
- [One Explanation Does Not Fit All: The Promise of Interactive Explanations for Machine Learning Transparency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09734/) (2020)
- [Evaluating Explanation Methods for Deep Learning in Security](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02108/) (2019)
- [The Grammar of Interactive Explanatory Model Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00497/) (2020)
- [Machine Learning Explainability for External Stakeholders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.05408/) (2020)
- [Fooling Partial Dependence via Data Poisoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.12837/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing number of regulations and expectations of predictive machine learning models, such as so called right to explanation, has led to a large number of methods promising greater interpretability. High demand has led to a widespread adoption of XAI techniques like Shapley values, Partial Dependence profiles or permutational variable importance. However, we still do not know enough about their properties and how they manifest in the context in which explanations are created by analysts, reviewed by auditors, and interpreted by various stakeholders. This paper highlights a blind spot which, although critical, is often overlooked when monitoring and auditing machine learning models: the effect of the reference data on the explanation calculation. We discuss that many model explanations depend directly or indirectly on the choice of the referenced data distribution. We showcase examples where small changes in the distribution lead to drastic changes in the explanations, such as a change in trend or, alarmingly, a conclusion. Consequently, we postulate that obtaining robust and useful explanations always requires supporting them with a broader context.