Feature Attribution Stability Suite: How Stable Are Post-Hoc Attributions?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Post-hoc feature attribution methods are widely deployed in safety-critical vision systems, yet their stability under realistic input perturbations remains poorly characterized. Existing metrics evaluate explanations primarily under additive noise, collapse stability to a single scalar, and fail to condition on prediction preservation, conflating explanation fragility with model sensitivity. We introduce the Feature Attribution Stability Suite (FASS), a benchmark that enforces prediction-invariance filtering, decomposes stability into three complementary metrics: structural similarity, rank correlation, and top-k Jaccard overlap-and evaluates across geometric, photometric, and compression perturbations. Evaluating four attribution methods (Integrated Gradients, GradientSHAP, Grad-CAM, LIME) across four architectures and three datasets-ImageNet-1K, MS COCO, and CIFAR-10, FASS shows that stability estimates depend critically on perturbation family and prediction-invariance filtering. Geometric perturbations expose substantially greater attribution instability than photometric changes, and without conditioning on prediction preservation, up to 99% of evaluated pairs involve changed predictions. Under this controlled evaluation, we observe consistent method-level trends, with Grad-CAM achieving the highest stability across datasets.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2026.
Builds on
22 of 36 references.
References · 22
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
- 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
- 2016Densely Connected Convolutional Networkscited by 6,691
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 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
- 2022A ConvNet for the 2020scited by 3,545
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2020Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorchcited by 542
10 more
- 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
- 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
- 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 310
- 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 309
- 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 125
- 2021Guided Integrated Gradients: An Adaptive Path Method for Removing Noisecited by 102
- 2021Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Autonomous Driving: A Comprehensive Overview and Field Guide for Future Research Directionscited by 73
- 2019DLIME: A Deterministic Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations Approach for Computer-Aided Diagnosis Systemscited by 59
- 2021S-LIME: Stabilized-LIME for Model Explanationcited by 52
- 2020Investigating Saturation Effects in Integrated Gradientscited by 22
Built on by
Not cited yet.