Position: Explanation Stability Is a Property of the Model Method Pair, Not the Model
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This position paper argues that claims about explanation stability are scientifically invalid without cross method validation. Just as statistical significance requires the test statistic to be specified, stability should either be evaluated across multiple attribution paradigms or explicitly scoped to the computational objective of a single method. In controlled chest X ray experiments, DenseNet201, ResNet50V2, and InceptionV3 achieved AUC values above 99%, yet their stability rankings reversed across attribution methods. LayerCAM ranked InceptionV3 as the most stable model, with an IoU of 0.777, whereas GradCAM++ favored DenseNet201 and reduced InceptionV3 stability score by 17.3%. These findings demonstrate that explanation stability is an emergent property of the model method pair rather than an intrinsic characteristic of the model alone. We therefore argue that explanation based claims should be validated across multiple attribution methods and that regulatory submissions should explicitly specify the attribution operators used to avoid creating illusory safety assurances.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2026.
Builds on
24 of 36 references.
References · 24
- 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
- 2016Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networkscited by 1,960
- 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
- 2017Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Netscited by 1,126
- 2017Grad-CAM++: Improved Visual Explanations for Deep Convolutional Networkscited by 936
- 2019Big Transfer (BiT): General Visual Representation Learningcited by 766
- 2021Do Vision Transformers See Like Convolutional Neural Networks?cited by 671
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
- 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
- 2019Transfusion: Understanding Transfer Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 366
12 more
- 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
- 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
- 2022Quantus: An Explainable AI Toolkit for Responsible Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations and Beyondcited by 171
- 2022The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 156
- 2022OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanationscited by 125
- 2022Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanationscited by 77
- 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 48
- 2023The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantuscited by 37
- 2024Benchmarking XAI Explanations with Human-Aligned Evaluationscited by 8
- 2023Reckoning with the Disagreement Problem: Explanation Consensus as a Training Objectivecited by 6
- 2024On the Evaluation Consistency of Attribution-based Explanationscited by 5
- 2025Evaluating Explainability: A Framework for Systematic Assessment and Reporting of Explainable AI Featurescited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.