mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the overlooked issue of defining explanation objectives for local-surrogate explainers

arXiv 2106.05810 ↗First posted 10 Jun 2021cs.LG cs.AI stat.MLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Local surrogate approaches for explaining machine learning model predictions have appealing properties, such as being model-agnostic and flexible in their modelling. Several methods exist that fit this description and share this goal. However, despite their shared overall procedure, they set out different objectives, extract different information from the black-box, and consequently produce diverse explanations, that are -- in general -- incomparable. In this work we review the similarities and differences amongst multiple methods, with a particular focus on what information they extract from the model, as this has large impact on the output: the explanation. We discuss the implications of the lack of agreement, and clarity, amongst the methods' objectives on the research and practice of explainability.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2021.

Builds on

8 of 12 references.

References · 8

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  4. 2020Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiencescited by 251
  5. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 198
  6. 2018Local Rule-Based Explanations of Black Box Decision Systemscited by 165
  7. 2018Defining Locality for Surrogates in Post-hoc Interpretablitycited by 33
  8. 2019A Human-Grounded Evaluation of SHAP for Alert Processingcited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1.

5 papers.