mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Query Channel: Information-Theoretic Limits of Masking-Based Explanations

arXiv 2604.16689 ↗First posted 17 Apr 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Masking-based post-hoc explanation methods, such as KernelSHAP and LIME, estimate local feature importance by querying a black-box model under randomized perturbations. This paper formulates this procedure as communication over a query channel, where the latent explanation acts as a message and each masked evaluation is a channel use. Within this framework, the complexity of the explanation is captured by the entropy of the hypothesis class, while the query interface supplies information at a rate determined by an identification capacity per query. We derive a strong converse showing that, if the explanation rate exceeds this capacity, the probability of exact recovery necessarily converges to one in error for any sequence of explainers and decoders. We also prove an achievability result establishing that a sparse maximum-likelihood decoder attains reliable recovery when the rate lies below capacity. A Monte Carlo estimator of mutual information yields a non-asymptotic query benchmark that we use to compare optimal decoding with Lasso- and OLS-based procedures that mirror LIME and KernelSHAP. Experiments reveal a range of query budgets where information theory permits reliable explanations but standard convex surrogates still fail. Finally, we interpret super-pixel resolution and tokenization for neural language models as a source-coding choice that sets the entropy of the explanation and show how Gaussian noise and nonlinear curvature degrade the query channel, induce waterfall and error-floor behavior, and render high-resolution explanations unattainable.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2026.

Builds on

21 of 38 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  4. 2015Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Unitscited by 2,918
  5. 2018SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processingcited by 1,989
  6. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
  7. 2021ByT5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte modelscited by 509
  8. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 476
  9. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 444
  10. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  11. 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 314
  12. 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 310
9 more
  1. 2017Information-theoretic analysis of generalization capability of learning algorithmscited by 303
  2. 2020Improving KernelSHAP: Practical Shapley Value Estimation via Linear Regressioncited by 154
  3. 2016Information Dropout: Learning Optimal Representations Through Noisy Computationcited by 132
  4. 2023Tokenizer Choice For LLM Training: Negligible or Crucial?cited by 108
  5. 2020Explaining the Explainer: A First Theoretical Analysis of LIMEcited by 89
  6. 2024TokenSHAP: Interpreting Large Language Models with Monte Carlo Shapley Value Estimationcited by 42
  7. 2021Why don't people use character-level machine translation?cited by 27
  8. 2024Large Vocabulary Size Improves Large Language Modelscited by 11
  9. 2025The Limits of AI Explainability: An Algorithmic Information Theory Approachcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.