Don't be fooled: label leakage in explanation methods and the importance of their quantitative evaluation
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
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
- 2019HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processingcited by 2,201
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
- 2019Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddingscited by 995
19 more
- 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 825
- 2016TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systemscited by 660
- 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 611
- 2019ClinicalBERT: Modeling Clinical Notes and Predicting Hospital Readmissioncited by 487
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
- 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
- 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
- 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
- 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
- 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
- 2020Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanationcited by 218
- 2021FastSHAP: Real-Time Shapley Value Estimationcited by 123
- 2022A Consistent and Efficient Evaluation Strategy for Attribution Methodscited by 100
- 2019CXPlain: Causal Explanations for Model Interpretation under Uncertaintycited by 98
- 2020Shapley explainability on the data manifoldcited by 88
- 2017Explaining Recurrent Neural Network Predictions in Sentiment Analysiscited by 87
- 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
- 2018Deep Learning Predicts Hip Fracture using Confounding Patient and Healthcare Variablescited by 50
- 2022New-Onset Diabetes Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Electrocardiographycited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
11 papers.
- 2023Explaining Predictive Uncertainty with Information Theoretic Shapley Valuescited by 36
- 2024Explaining Time Series via Contrastive and Locally Sparse Perturbationscited by 22
- 2023Towards Robust Fidelity for Evaluating Explainability of Graph Neural Networkscited by 16
- 2024Adaptive Sampling of k-Space in Magnetic Resonance for Rapid Pathology Predictioncited by 7
- 2025Unveil Sources of Uncertainty: Feature Contribution to Conformal Prediction Intervalscited by 4
- 2024Explanations that reveal all through the definition of encodingcited by 3
- 2023Beyond Single-Feature Importance with ICECREAMcited by 2
- 2023Fast Shapley Value Estimation: A Unified Approachcited by 2
- 2024Local Feature Selection without Label or Feature Leakage for Interpretable Machine Learning Predictionscited by 1
- 2026Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, and Fragility in Perturbation Responsescited by 0
- 2026A Hierarchy of Entropy-Shapley Games for Multivariate Predictive Uncertaintycited by 0
- 2026A Hierarchy of Entropy-Shapley Games for Multivariate Predictive Uncertainty28 Sep 2026
- 2026Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, and Fragility in Perturbation Responses13 Aug 2026
- 2025Unveil Sources of Uncertainty: Feature Contribution to Conformal Prediction Intervals19 May 2025
- 2024Explanations that reveal all through the definition of encoding4 Nov 2024
- 2024Local Feature Selection without Label or Feature Leakage for Interpretable Machine Learning Predictions16 Jul 2024
- 2024Adaptive Sampling of k-Space in Magnetic Resonance for Rapid Pathology Prediction6 Jun 2024
- 2024Explaining Time Series via Contrastive and Locally Sparse Perturbations16 Jan 2024
- 2023Fast Shapley Value Estimation: A Unified Approach2 Nov 2023
- 2023Towards Robust Fidelity for Evaluating Explainability of Graph Neural Networks3 Oct 2023
- 2023Beyond Single-Feature Importance with ICECREAM19 Jul 2023
- 2023Explaining Predictive Uncertainty with Information Theoretic Shapley Values9 Jun 2023