mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Black-Box Anomaly Attribution

arXiv 2305.18440 ↗First posted 29 May 2023cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When the prediction of a black-box machine learning model deviates from the true observation, what can be said about the reason behind that deviation? This is a fundamental and ubiquitous question that the end user in a business or industrial AI application often asks. The deviation may be due to a sub-optimal black-box model, or it may be simply because the sample in question is an outlier. In either case, one would ideally wish to obtain some form of attribution score -- a value indicative of the extent to which an input variable is responsible for the anomaly. In the present paper we address this task of ``anomaly attribution,'' particularly in the setting in which the model is black-box and the training data are not available. Specifically, we propose a novel likelihood-based attribution framework we call the ``likelihood compensation (LC),'' in which the responsibility score is equated with the correction on each input variable needed to attain the highest possible likelihood. We begin by showing formally why mainstream model-agnostic explanation methods, such as the local linear surrogate modeling and Shapley values, are not designed to explain anomalies. In particular, we show that they are ``deviation-agnostic,'' namely, that their explanations are blind to the fact that there is a deviation in the model prediction for the sample of interest. We do this by positioning these existing methods under the unified umbrella of a function family we call the ``integrated gradient family.'' We validate the effectiveness of the proposed LC approach using publicly available data sets. We also conduct a case study with a real-world building energy prediction task and confirm its usefulness in practice based on expert feedback.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2023.

Builds on

20 of 57 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,415
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  6. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
  7. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,552
  8. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
  9. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 344
  10. 2020A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learningcited by 227
  11. 2020Problems with Shapley-value-based explanations as feature importance measurescited by 200
  12. 2019Adversarial Robustness through Local Linearizationcited by 146
8 more
  1. 2021Do Feature Attribution Methods Correctly Attribute Features?cited by 98
  2. 2022A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detectioncited by 39
  3. 2020Interpretable, Multidimensional, Multimodal Anomaly Detection with Negative Sampling for Detection of Device Failurecited by 27
  4. 2022Attribution-based XAI Methods in Computer Vision: A Reviewcited by 16
  5. 2020A Unified Taylor Framework for Revisiting Attribution Methodscited by 13
  6. 2022A general-purpose method for applying Explainable AI for Anomaly Detectioncited by 7
  7. 2022Anomaly Attribution with Likelihood Compensationcited by 7
  8. 2019ACE -- An Anomaly Contribution Explainer for Cyber-Security Applicationscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.

1 paper.