mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Identifying the Source of Vulnerability in Explanation Discrepancy: A Case Study in Neural Text Classification

arXiv 2212.05327 ↗First posted 10 Dec 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Some recent works observed the instability of post-hoc explanations when input side perturbations are applied to the model. This raises the interest and concern in the stability of post-hoc explanations. However, the remaining question is: is the instability caused by the neural network model or the post-hoc explanation method? This work explores the potential source that leads to unstable post-hoc explanations. To separate the influence from the model, we propose a simple output probability perturbation method. Compared to prior input side perturbation methods, the output probability perturbation method can circumvent the neural model's potential effect on the explanations and allow the analysis on the explanation method. We evaluate the proposed method with three widely-used post-hoc explanation methods (LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016), Kernel Shapley (Lundberg and Lee, 2017a), and Sample Shapley (Strumbelj and Kononenko, 2010)). The results demonstrate that the post-hoc methods are stable, barely producing discrepant explanations under output probability perturbations. The observation suggests that neural network models may be the primary source of fragile explanations.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2022.

Builds on

38 of 55 references.

References · 38

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,293
  7. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
  8. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  9. 2014Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classificationcited by 1,124
  10. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  11. 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 709
  12. 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
26 more
  1. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  2. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
  3. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
  4. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 422
  5. 2018TextBugger: Generating Adversarial Text Against Real-world Applicationscited by 376
  6. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 341
  7. 2020A Survey on Neural Network Interpretabilitycited by 291
  8. 2018Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 237
  9. 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
  10. 2018To Trust Or Not To Trust A Classifiercited by 205
  11. 2017Generating Natural Adversarial Examplescited by 182
  12. 2019Certified Robustness to Adversarial Word Substitutionscited by 164
  13. 2019Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulationcited by 112
  14. 2020Adversarial Training for Large Neural Language Modelscited by 109
  15. 2017Deep Text Classification Can be Fooledcited by 105
  16. 2018L-Shapley and C-Shapley: Efficient Model Interpretation for Structured Datacited by 100
  17. 2018Interpretable Deep Learning under Firecited by 74
  18. 2019Robust Attribution Regularizationcited by 46
  19. 2020Gradient-based Analysis of NLP Models is Manipulablecited by 41
  20. 2020Learning Variational Word Masks to Improve the Interpretability of Neural Text Classifierscited by 35
  21. 2021Perturbing Inputs for Fragile Interpretations in Deep Natural Language Processingcited by 30
  22. 2018Interpreting Recurrent and Attention-Based Neural Models: a Case Study on Natural Language Inferencecited by 26
  23. 2016Interpretation of Prediction Models Using the Input Gradientcited by 24
  24. 2021On the Lack of Robust Interpretability of Neural Text Classifierscited by 17
  25. 2022Fooling Explanations in Text Classifierscited by 13
  26. 2022Adversarial Training for Improving Model Robustness? Look at Both Prediction and Interpretationcited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1.

2 papers.