mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Feature salience - not task-informativeness - drives machine learning model explanations

arXiv 2602.09238 ↗First posted 9 Feb 2026cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM safety and security → Watermarking generated content and models

Abstract (arXiv)

Explainable AI (XAI) promises to provide insight into machine learning models' decision processes, where one goal is to identify failures such as shortcut learning. This promise relies on the field's assumption that input features marked as important by an XAI must contain information about the target variable. However, it is unclear whether informativeness is indeed the main driver of importance attribution in practice, or if other data properties such as statistical suppression, novelty at test-time, or high feature salience substantially contribute. To clarify this, we trained deep learning models on three variants of a binary image classification task, in which translucent watermarks are either absent, act as class-dependent confounds, or represent class-independent noise. Results for five popular attribution methods show substantially elevated relative importance in watermarked areas (RIW) for all models regardless of the training setting (R2 ≥ .45). By contrast, whether the presence of watermarks is class-dependent or not only has a marginal effect on RIW (R2 ≤ .03), despite a clear impact impact on model performance and generalisation ability. XAI methods show similar behaviour to model-agnostic edge detection filters and attribute substantially less importance to watermarks when bright image intensities are encoded by smaller instead of larger feature values. These results indicate that importance attribution is most strongly driven by the salience of image structures at test time rather than statistical associations learned by machine learning models. Previous studies demonstrating successful XAI application should be reevaluated with respect to a possibly spurious concurrency of feature salience and informativeness, and workflows using feature attribution methods as building blocks should be scrutinised.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Watermarking generated content and models, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 26 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2026.

Builds on

26 of 56 references.

References · 26

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  4. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  5. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  6. 2019A Comprehensive Survey on Transfer Learningcited by 1,154
  7. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  8. 2020Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorchcited by 542
  9. 2019Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learncited by 359
  10. 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 327
  11. 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
  12. 2019Causality for Machine Learningcited by 242
14 more
  1. 2019Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blamecited by 215
  2. 2019Causality matters in medical imagingcited by 193
  3. 2020Drug discovery with explainable artificial intelligencecited by 118
  4. 2017Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and PatternAttributioncited by 84
  5. 2022Detecting Shortcut Learning for Fair Medical AI using Shortcut Testingcited by 52
  6. 2023The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantuscited by 37
  7. 2024Decoupling Pixel Flipping and Occlusion Strategy for Consistent XAI Benchmarkscited by 28
  8. 2021Scrutinizing XAI using linear ground-truth data with suppressor variablescited by 18
  9. 2023Theoretical Behavior of XAI Methods in the Presence of Suppressor Variablescited by 12
  10. 2022Optimizing Explanations by Network Canonization and Hyperparameter Searchcited by 11
  11. 2015Causal interpretation rules for encoding and decoding models in neuroimagingcited by 10
  12. 2023Benchmarking the Influence of Pre-training on Explanation Performance in MR Image Classificationcited by 8
  13. 2024GECOBench: A Gender-Controlled Text Dataset and Benchmark for Quantifying Biases in Explanationscited by 5
  14. 2025Explainable AI Methods for Neuroimaging: Systematic Failures of Common Tools, the Need for Domain-Specific Validation, and a Proposal for Safe Applicationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.