mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Discriminative Feature Attributions: Bridging Post Hoc Explainability and Inherent Interpretability

arXiv 2307.15007 ↗First posted 27 Jul 2023cs.LG cs.CVcited by 10

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

  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. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  4. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,290
  5. 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
  6. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,109
  7. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,032
  8. 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 737
  9. 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 612
  10. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 476
  11. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 419
  12. 2019Understanding Deep Networks via Extremal Perturbations and Smooth Maskscited by 259
11 more
  1. 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
  2. 2017Real Time Image Saliency for Black Box Classifierscited by 246
  3. 2019Full-Gradient Representation for Neural Network Visualizationcited by 191
  4. 2017Non-convex Optimization for Machine Learningcited by 133
  5. 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 126
  6. 2019Fooling Neural Network Interpretations via Adversarial Model Manipulationcited by 112
  7. 2019"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanationscited by 111
  8. 2022B-cos Networks: Alignment is All We Need for Interpretabilitycited by 88
  9. 2022Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanationscited by 77
  10. 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
  11. 2021Do Input Gradients Highlight Discriminative Features?cited by 52

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

10 papers.