Guidelines For The Choice Of The Baseline in XAI Attribution Methods
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Given the broad adoption of artificial intelligence, it is essential to provide evidence that AI models are reliable, trustable, and fair. To this end, the emerging field of eXplainable AI develops techniques to probe such requirements, counterbalancing the hype pushing the pervasiveness of this technology. Among the many facets of this issue, this paper focuses on baseline attribution methods, aiming at deriving a feature attribution map at the network input relying on a "neutral" stimulus usually called "baseline". The choice of the baseline is crucial as it determines the explanation of the network behavior. In this framework, this paper has the twofold goal of shedding light on the implications of the choice of the baseline and providing a simple yet effective method for identifying the best baseline for the task. To achieve this, we propose a decision boundary sampling method, since the baseline, by definition, lies on the decision boundary, which naturally becomes the search domain. Experiments are performed on synthetic examples and validated relying on state-of-the-art methods. Despite being limited to the experimental scope, this contribution is relevant as it offers clear guidelines and a simple proxy for baseline selection, reducing ambiguity and enhancing deep models' reliability and trust.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2025.
Builds on
27 of 45 references.
References · 27
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 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
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2018UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reductioncited by 2,841
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
- 2019A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Towards Medical XAIcited by 403
- 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
- 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
- 2021Explainable AI (XAI): A Systematic Meta-Survey of Current Challenges and Future Opportunitiescited by 125
15 more
- 2022A Rigorous Study of Integrated Gradients Method and Extensions to Internal Neuron Attributionscited by 64
- 2018Knowledge Distillation with Adversarial Samples Supporting Decision Boundarycited by 49
- 2022Beyond Explaining: Opportunities and Challenges of XAI-Based Model Improvementcited by 48
- 2020The Intriguing Relation Between Counterfactual Explanations and Adversarial Examplescited by 44
- 2019Characterizing the Decision Boundary of Deep Neural Networkscited by 32
- 2023SplineCam: Exact Visualization and Characterization of Deep Network Geometry and Decision Boundariescited by 31
- 2019Explaining Models by Propagating Shapley Values of Local Componentscited by 29
- 2021On Baselines for Local Feature Attributionscited by 29
- 2019Explaining Deep Learning Models with Constrained Adversarial Examplescited by 19
- 2020Understanding Integrated Gradients with SmoothTaylor for Deep Neural Network Attributioncited by 19
- 2020Analysis of Generalizability of Deep Neural Networks Based on the Complexity of Decision Boundarycited by 13
- 2017Building a Regular Decision Boundary with Deep Networkscited by 11
- 2020A Baseline for Shapley Values in MLPs: from Missingness to Neutralitycited by 11
- 2024Applications of interpretable deep learning in neuroimaging: a comprehensive reviewcited by 3
- 2023Looking deeper into interpretable deep learning in neuroimaging: a comprehensive surveycited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.