mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Don't be fooled: label leakage in explanation methods and the importance of their quantitative evaluation

arXiv 2302.12893 ↗First posted 24 Feb 2023cs.LG cs.AIcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Feature attribution methods identify which features of an input most influence a model's output. Most widely-used feature attribution methods (such as SHAP, LIME, and Grad-CAM) are "class-dependent" methods in that they generate a feature attribution vector as a function of class. In this work, we demonstrate that class-dependent methods can "leak" information about the selected class, making that class appear more likely than it is. Thus, an end user runs the risk of drawing false conclusions when interpreting an explanation generated by a class-dependent method. In contrast, we introduce "distribution-aware" methods, which favor explanations that keep the label's distribution close to its distribution given all features of the input. We introduce SHAP-KL and FastSHAP-KL, two baseline distribution-aware methods that compute Shapley values. Finally, we perform a comprehensive evaluation of seven class-dependent and three distribution-aware methods on three clinical datasets of different high-dimensional data types: images, biosignals, and text.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Feb 2023.

Builds on

31 of 45 references.

References · 31

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
  3. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  4. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  7. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  8. 2019HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processingcited by 2,201
  9. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
  10. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  11. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
  12. 2019Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddingscited by 995
19 more
  1. 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 825
  2. 2016TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systemscited by 660
  3. 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 611
  4. 2019ClinicalBERT: Modeling Clinical Notes and Predicting Hospital Readmissioncited by 487
  5. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  6. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
  7. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
  8. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
  9. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
  10. 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
  11. 2020Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanationcited by 218
  12. 2021FastSHAP: Real-Time Shapley Value Estimationcited by 123
  13. 2022A Consistent and Efficient Evaluation Strategy for Attribution Methodscited by 100
  14. 2019CXPlain: Causal Explanations for Model Interpretation under Uncertaintycited by 98
  15. 2020Shapley explainability on the data manifoldcited by 88
  16. 2017Explaining Recurrent Neural Network Predictions in Sentiment Analysiscited by 87
  17. 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
  18. 2018Deep Learning Predicts Hip Fracture using Confounding Patient and Healthcare Variablescited by 50
  19. 2022New-Onset Diabetes Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Electrocardiographycited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

11 papers.