mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CID: Measuring Feature Importance Through Counterfactual Distributions

arXiv 2511.15371 ↗First posted 19 Nov 2025cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Assessing the importance of individual features in Machine Learning is critical to understand the model's decision-making process. While numerous methods exist, the lack of a definitive ground truth for comparison highlights the need for alternative, well-founded measures. This paper introduces a novel post-hoc local feature importance method called Counterfactual Importance Distribution (CID). We generate two sets of positive and negative counterfactuals, model their distributions using Kernel Density Estimation, and rank features based on a distributional dissimilarity measure. This measure, grounded in a rigorous mathematical framework, satisfies key properties required to function as a valid metric. We showcase the effectiveness of our method by comparing with well-established local feature importance explainers. Our method not only offers complementary perspectives to existing approaches, but also improves performance on faithfulness metrics (both for comprehensiveness and sufficiency), resulting in more faithful explanations of the system. These results highlight its potential as a valuable tool for model analysis. Link to repository: https://github.com/EddieConti/CID

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Nov 2025.

Builds on

23 of 53 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
  4. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 636
  5. 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 614
  6. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 599
  7. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 530
  8. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 314
  9. 2018Techniques for Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 238
  10. 2020Explaining by Removing: A Unified Framework for Model Explanationcited by 218
  11. 2019Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisionscited by 204
  12. 2020Counterfactual Explanations and Algorithmic Recourses for Machine Learning: A Reviewcited by 174
11 more
  1. 2022The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 159
  2. 2020Multi-Objective Counterfactual Explanationscited by 157
  3. 2021If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniquescited by 82
  4. 2021GLocalX -- From Local to Global Explanations of Black Box AI Modelscited by 48
  5. 2021A Survey on the Robustness of Feature Importance and Counterfactual Explanationscited by 39
  6. 2022A Comparative Study of Faithfulness Metrics for Model Interpretability Methodscited by 39
  7. 2016A note on the triangle inequality for the Jaccard distancecited by 32
  8. 2022The impact of feature importance methods on the interpretation of defect classifierscited by 12
  9. 2024On the Evaluation Consistency of Attribution-based Explanationscited by 5
  10. 2025Generating Counterfactual Explanations Under Temporal Constraintscited by 3
  11. 2023Calculating and Visualizing Counterfactual Feature Importance Valuescited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.