# SIDEs: Separating Idealization from Deceptive Explanations in xAI

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16534 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16534/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 48 of its 116 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 48)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.07269/) (2017)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Counterfactual Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.06856/) (2017)
- [Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07697/) (2019)
- [Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.00069/) (2018)
- [Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragile](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.10547/) (2017)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.08813/) (2016)
- [Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.06514/) (2018)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08164/) (2022)
- [Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07810/) (2018)
- [Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blame](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.07983/) (2019)
- [Formalizing Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Prerequisites, Causes and Goals of Human Trust in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.07487/) (2020)
- [The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.01602/) (2022)
- [Algorithmic recourse under imperfect causal knowledge: a probabilistic approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06831/) (2020)
- [Explaining Explanations in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.01439/) (2018)
- [Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.04719/) (2021)
- [What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.07817/) (2021)
- [A survey of algorithmic recourse: definitions, formulations, solutions, and prospects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.04050/) (2020)
- [The Hidden Assumptions Behind Counterfactual Explanations and Principal Reasons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.04930/) (2019)
- [Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.02666/) (2021)
- [Efficient Search for Diverse Coherent Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.04909/) (2019)
- ["How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.06473/) (2019)
- [Unrestricted Permutation forces Extrapolation: Variable Importance Requires at least One More Model, or There Is No Free Variable Importance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.03151/) (2019)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [GECOBench: A Gender-Controlled Text Dataset and Benchmark for Quantifying Biases in Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11547/) (2024)
- [Reliability, Faithfulness, and the Limits of Post-hoc Explanations of Opaque Scientific Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29346/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (xAI) methods are important for establishing trust in using black-box models. However, recent criticism has mounted against current xAI methods that they disagree, are necessarily false, and can be manipulated, which has started to undermine the deployment of black-box models. Rudin (2019) goes so far as to say that we should stop using black-box models altogether in high-stakes cases because xAI explanations "must be wrong". However, strict fidelity to the truth is historically not a desideratum in science. Idealizations -- the intentional distortions introduced to scientific theories and models -- are commonplace in the natural sciences and are seen as a successful scientific tool. Thus, it is not falsehood qua falsehood that is the issue. In this paper, I outline the need for xAI research to engage in idealization evaluation. Drawing on the use of idealizations in the natural sciences and philosophy of science, I introduce a novel framework for evaluating whether xAI methods engage in successful idealizations or deceptive explanations (SIDEs). SIDEs evaluates whether the limitations of xAI methods, and the distortions that they introduce, can be part of a successful idealization or are indeed deceptive distortions as critics suggest. I discuss the role that existing research can play in idealization evaluation and where innovation is necessary. Through a qualitative analysis we find that leading feature importance methods and counterfactual explanations are subject to idealization failure and suggest remedies for ameliorating idealization failure.