mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Feature Perturbation Augmentation for Reliable Evaluation of Importance Estimators in Neural Networks

arXiv 2303.01538 ↗First posted 2 Mar 2023cs.LG cs.CVcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Post-hoc explanation methods attempt to make the inner workings of deep neural networks more interpretable. However, since a ground truth is in general lacking, local post-hoc interpretability methods, which assign importance scores to input features, are challenging to evaluate. One of the most popular evaluation frameworks is to perturb features deemed important by an interpretability method and to measure the change in prediction accuracy. Intuitively, a large decrease in prediction accuracy would indicate that the explanation has correctly quantified the importance of features with respect to the prediction outcome (e.g., logits). However, the change in the prediction outcome may stem from perturbation artifacts, since perturbed samples in the test dataset are out of distribution (OOD) compared to the training dataset and can therefore potentially disturb the model in an unexpected manner. To overcome this challenge, we propose feature perturbation augmentation (FPA) which creates and adds perturbed images during the model training. Through extensive computational experiments, we demonstrate that FPA makes deep neural networks (DNNs) more robust against perturbations. Furthermore, training DNNs with FPA demonstrate that the sign of importance scores may explain the model more meaningfully than has previously been assumed. Overall, FPA is an intuitive data augmentation technique that improves the evaluation of post-hoc interpretability methods.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Mar 2023.

Builds on

28 of 40 references.

References · 28

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  3. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  4. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  5. 2015Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localizationcited by 2,430
  6. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  7. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
  8. 2017Random Erasing Data Augmentationcited by 1,235
  9. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  10. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
  11. 2018RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Modelscited by 825
  12. 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 611
16 more
  1. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  2. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
  3. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
  4. 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 309
  5. 2017Real Time Image Saliency for Black Box Classifierscited by 246
  6. 2020Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanationscited by 185
  7. 2019XRAI: Better Attributions Through Regionscited by 116
  8. 2022A Consistent and Efficient Evaluation Strategy for Attribution Methodscited by 100
  9. 2017Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and PatternAttributioncited by 84
  10. 2020On quantitative aspects of model interpretabilitycited by 71
  11. 2022Framework for Evaluating Faithfulness of Local Explanationscited by 55
  12. 2020IROF: a low resource evaluation metric for explanation methodscited by 45
  13. 2020Circumventing Outliers of AutoAugment with Knowledge Distillationcited by 29
  14. 2020Enforcing Interpretability and its Statistical Impacts: Trade-offs between Accuracy and Interpretabilitycited by 24
  15. 2022Evaluation of importance estimators in deep learning classifiers for Computed Tomographycited by 2
  16. 2020Input Bias in Rectified Gradients and Modified Saliency Mapscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 5; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

9 papers.