Local Feature Selection without Label or Feature Leakage for Interpretable Machine Learning Predictions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Local feature selection in machine learning provides instance-specific explanations by focusing on the most relevant features for each prediction, enhancing the interpretability of complex models. However, such methods tend to produce misleading explanations by encoding additional information in their selections. In this work, we attribute the problem of misleading selections by formalizing the concepts of label and feature leakage. We rigorously derive the necessary and sufficient conditions under which we can guarantee no leakage, and show existing methods do not meet these conditions. Furthermore, we propose the first local feature selection method that is proven to have no leakage called SUWR. Our experimental results indicate that SUWR is less prone to overfitting and combines state-of-the-art predictive performance with high feature-selection sparsity. Our generic and easily extendable formal approach provides a strong theoretical basis for future work on interpretability with reliable explanations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2024.
Builds on
27 of 38 references.
References · 27
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,283
- 2016Categorical Reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmaxcited by 2,708
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2019TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learningcited by 640
- 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
- 2016From Softmax to Sparsemax: A Sparse Model of Attention and Multi-Label Classificationcited by 337
- 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
- 2018Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretationcited by 248
- 2017Real Time Image Saliency for Black Box Classifierscited by 246
15 more
- 2018Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 237
- 2019Interpretable Neural Predictions with Differentiable Binary Variablescited by 126
- 2019Sanity Checks for Saliency Metricscited by 119
- 2019CXPlain: Causal Explanations for Model Interpretation under Uncertaintycited by 98
- 2019Concrete Autoencoders for Differentiable Feature Selection and Reconstructioncited by 90
- 2019LassoNet: A Neural Network with Feature Sparsitycited by 81
- 2020Aligning Faithful Interpretations with their Social Attributioncited by 79
- 2020An Information Bottleneck Approach for Controlling Conciseness in Rationale Extractioncited by 69
- 2021Have We Learned to Explain?: How Interpretability Methods Can Learn to Encode Predictions in their Interpretationscited by 59
- 2023Learning to Maximize Mutual Information for Dynamic Feature Selectioncited by 54
- 2020Active Feature Acquisition with Generative Surrogate Modelscited by 53
- 2022Can Rationalization Improve Robustness?cited by 36
- 2021Explain and Predict, and then Predict Againcited by 29
- 2021The Irrationality of Neural Rationale Modelscited by 16
- 2023Don't be fooled: label leakage in explanation methods and the importance of their quantitative evaluationcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.