mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Structural Compactness as a Complementary Criterion for Explanation Quality

arXiv 2603.29491 ↗First posted 31 Mar 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In the evaluation of attribution quality, the quantitative assessment of explanation legibility is particularly difficult, as it is influenced by varying shapes and internal organization of attributions not captured by simple statistics. To address this issue, we introduce Minimum Spanning Tree Compactness (MST-C), a graph-based structural metric that captures higher-order geometric properties of attributions, such as spread and cohesion. These components are combined into a single score that evaluates compactness, favoring attributions with salient points spread across a small area and spatially organized into few but cohesive clusters. We show that MST-C reliably distinguishes between explanation methods, exposes fundamental structural differences between models, and provides a robust, self-contained diagnostic for explanation compactness that complements existing notions of attribution complexity.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2026.

Builds on

24 of 32 references.

References · 24

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2014Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognitioncited by 15,267
  3. 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 11,979
  4. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,441
  5. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  6. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  7. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  8. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  9. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,309
  10. 2017Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbationcited by 611
  11. 2019The many Shapley values for model explanationcited by 341
  12. 2017Improving the Adversarial Robustness and Interpretability of Deep Neural Networks by Regularizing their Input Gradientscited by 236
12 more
  1. 2020Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanationscited by 185
  2. 2022Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyondcited by 171
  3. 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
  4. 2020On quantitative aspects of model interpretabilitycited by 71
  5. 2022Beyond Explaining: Opportunities and Challenges of XAI-Based Model Improvementcited by 48
  6. 2020IROF: a low resource evaluation metric for explanation methodscited by 45
  7. 2023The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantuscited by 37
  8. 2025Mechanistic understanding and validation of large AI models with SemanticLenscited by 29
  9. 2024A Fresh Look at Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 8
  10. 2024Benchmarking XAI Explanations with Human-Aligned Evaluationscited by 8
  11. 2023Efficient and Flexible Neural Network Training through Layer-wise Feedback Propagationcited by 2
  12. 2025See What I Mean? CUE: A Cognitive Model of Understanding Explanationscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.