Discriminative Feature Attributions: Bridging Post Hoc Explainability and Inherent Interpretability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the increased deployment of machine learning models in various real-world applications, researchers and practitioners alike have emphasized the need for explanations of model behaviour. To this end, two broad strategies have been outlined in prior literature to explain models. Post hoc explanation methods explain the behaviour of complex black-box models by identifying features critical to model predictions; however, prior work has shown that these explanations may not be faithful, in that they incorrectly attribute high importance to features that are unimportant or non-discriminative for the underlying task. Inherently interpretable models, on the other hand, circumvent these issues by explicitly encoding explanations into model architecture, meaning their explanations are naturally faithful, but they often exhibit poor predictive performance due to their limited expressive power. In this work, we identify a key reason for the lack of faithfulness of feature attributions: the lack of robustness of the underlying black-box models, especially to the erasure of unimportant distractor features in the input. To address this issue, we propose Distractor Erasure Tuning (DiET), a method that adapts black-box models to be robust to distractor erasure, thus providing discriminative and faithful attributions. This strategy naturally combines the ease of use of post hoc explanations with the faithfulness of inherently interpretable models. We perform extensive experiments on semi-synthetic and real-world datasets and show that DiET produces models that (1) closely approximate the original black-box models they are intended to explain, and (2) yield explanations that match approximate ground truths available by construction. Our code is made public at https://github.com/AI4LIFE-GROUP/DiET.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2023.
Builds on
23 of 28 references.
References · 23
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,290
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
- 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,109
- 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
- 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 737
- 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 612
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 476
- 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 419
- 2019Understanding Deep Networks via Extremal Perturbations and Smooth Maskscited by 259
11 more
- 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
- 2017Real Time Image Saliency for Black Box Classifierscited by 246
- 2019Full-Gradient Representation for Neural Network Visualizationcited by 191
- 2017Non-convex Optimization for Machine Learningcited by 133
- 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 126
- 2019Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulationcited by 112
- 2019"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanationscited by 111
- 2022B-cos Networks: Alignment is All We Need for Interpretabilitycited by 88
- 2022Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanationscited by 77
- 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
- 2021Do Input Gradients Highlight Discriminative Features?cited by 52
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2024An Unsupervised Approach to Achieve Supervised-Level Explainability in Healthcare Recordscited by 12
- 2024Comprehensive Attribution: Inherently Explainable Vision Model with Feature Detectorcited by 5
- 2023How Well Do Feature-Additive Explainers Explain Feature-Additive Predictors?cited by 2
- 2025From Pixels to Perception: Interpretable Predictions via Instance-wise Grouped Feature Selectioncited by 2
- 2024Inpainting the Gaps: A Novel Framework for Evaluating Explanation Methods in Vision Transformerscited by 1
- 2025Generative Model Inversion Through the Lens of the Manifold Hypothesiscited by 1
- 2025Multi-criteria Rank-based Aggregation for Explainable AIcited by 0
- 2025Additive Large Language Models for Semi-Structured Textcited by 0
- 2026Explainable Continuous-Time Mask Refinement with Local Self-Similarity Priors for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 0
- 2026Linguistic Features for Interpretable Textual Entailmentcited by 0
- 2026Linguistic Features for Interpretable Textual Entailment21 Sep 2026
- 2026Explainable Continuous-Time Mask Refinement with Local Self-Similarity Priors for Medical Image Segmentation28 Feb 2026
- 2025Additive Large Language Models for Semi-Structured Text14 Nov 2025
- 2025Generative Model Inversion Through the Lens of the Manifold Hypothesis24 Sep 2025
- 2025Multi-criteria Rank-based Aggregation for Explainable AI30 May 2025
- 2025From Pixels to Perception: Interpretable Predictions via Instance-wise Grouped Feature Selection9 May 2025
- 2024Comprehensive Attribution: Inherently Explainable Vision Model with Feature Detector27 Jul 2024
- 2024Inpainting the Gaps: A Novel Framework for Evaluating Explanation Methods in Vision Transformers17 Jun 2024
- 2024An Unsupervised Approach to Achieve Supervised-Level Explainability in Healthcare Records13 Jun 2024
- 2023How Well Do Feature-Additive Explainers Explain Feature-Additive Predictors?27 Oct 2023