Towards a Theory of Faithfulness: Faithful Explanations of Differentiable Classifiers over Continuous Data
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
There is broad agreement in the literature that explanation methods should be faithful to the model that they explain, but faithfulness remains a rather vague term. We revisit faithfulness in the context of continuous data and propose two formal definitions of faithfulness for feature attribution methods. Qualitative faithfulness demands that scores reflect the true qualitative effect (positive vs. negative) of the feature on the model and quanitative faithfulness that the magnitude of scores reflect the true quantitative effect. We discuss under which conditions these requirements can be satisfied to which extent (local vs global). As an application of the conceptual idea, we look at differentiable classifiers over continuous data and characterize Gradient-scores as follows: every qualitatively faithful feature attribution method is qualitatively equivalent to Gradient-scores. Furthermore, if an attribution method is quantitatively faithful in the sense that changes of the output of the classifier are proportional to the scores of features, then it is either equivalent to gradient-scoring or it is based on an inferior approximation of the classifier. To illustrate the practical relevance of the theory, we experimentally demonstrate that popular attribution methods can fail to give faithful explanations in the setting where the data is continuous and the classifier differentiable.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2022.
Builds on
13 of 26 references.
References · 13
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
- 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 341
- 2019Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulationcited by 112
- 2020On the Tractability of SHAP Explanationscited by 92
- 2020Explaining the Explainer: A First Theoretical Analysis of LIMEcited by 89
- 2018Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanationscited by 83
- 2021Towards the Unification and Robustness of Perturbation and Gradient Based Explanationscited by 47
1 more
- 2020Gradient-based Analysis of NLP Models is Manipulablecited by 41
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 2.
3 papers.