arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 3
Attribution via Distributional Paths for Information Revelation
arXiv:2606. 03885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Feature attribution methods explain predictions by assigning importance scores to input features.
Local Additive Feature Attribution: A Mathematical Taxonomy and Reporting Checklist
arXiv:2607. 14271v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Feature-attribution methods are central to explainable artificial intelligence.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 2
Assessing Alignment and Stability of Feature Importance Explanations via Weight of Evidence
The paper introduces a hypothesis‑testing framework that embeds feature importance methods (FIMs) within a Weight of Evidence (WoE) analysis. By quantifying how strongly observed evidence supports a given hypothesis—whether from domain knowledge, ground truth, or the FIM itself—the approach evaluates FIM alignment and variability. The authors provide theoretical links between WoE and attribution variance and demonstrate the method on LIME and SHAP explanations across varied reference hypotheses.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 18
Evaluating Explanation Methods by the Predictors They Induce
The paper proposes a new evaluation test for explanation methods: if an explanation accurately captures how a model uses its features, one should be able to reconstruct the model’s predictions from it. The authors convert explanations into predictors by summing feature effects and assess how well these predictors reproduce the model on unseen data, without any fitting. They apply this test to partial dependence plots, accumulated local effects, SHAP, and LIME across multiple datasets and model families, showing that the best method depends on feature dependence and that some existing quality metrics can favor flawed explanations.
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 28
The Attribution Contract for Generative Language Models
The paper argues that feature attribution scores for generative language models lack a fixed meaning because each generated token is both output and input, leading to multiple distinct explanatory questions. It introduces the Attribution Contract framework, which explicitly defines the model score, fixed variables, target output, generation process, and eligible features, showing how these choices affect attribution outcomes. Experiments demonstrate that different contracts (e.g., local next-token vs. prompt-level) and model architectures (mixture-of-experts vs. masked-diffusion) yield markedly different attribution distributions, highlighting the need for careful contract specification.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 16
Evaluating Local Explainability Metrics for Machine Learning Models on Tabular Data
arXiv:2605. 27618v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite the wide use of explainability techniques to attempt to understand the behavior of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the generated explanations may not always be reliable.
arXiv AI
Aug 5
Measuring Explainer Stability via Attribution Separability
arXiv:2608. 02697v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Attribution methods (AMs) assign an importance score to each feature and are widely adopted to explain black-box models.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 29
Decision-Value Attribution in Predict-then-Optimize Systems
Predictive models are increasingly embedded in operational decision-making, yet standard explanation methods typically explain forecasts rather than the decisions those forecasts induce. This distinction is important in predict-then-optimize systems: large forecast changes may leave the optimizer's action unchanged, while small changes can alter the selected decision and its realized value.
arXiv AI
Jul 29
TaylorPODA: A Taylor Expansion-Based Method to Improve Post-Hoc Attributions for Opaque Models
arXiv:2507. 10643v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Post-hoc model-agnostic local attribution (LA) methods have been widely adopted to explain opaque AI models by quantifying feature-wise contributions.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 17
Evaluating Explanation Methods by the Predictors They Induce
The paper introduces a straightforward evaluation method for explanation techniques: by converting each explanation into a predictor that sums the feature effects, the authors assess how accurately this predictor reproduces the original model’s predictions on unseen data. This approach applies to any explanation expressible as a function of features and is demonstrated on PDP, ALE, SHAP, and LIME. The authors theoretically show that summing partial dependence curves yields the optimal additive summary when features are independent, but this property fails with dependent features, and empirical results across diverse datasets confirm that the best-performing method depends on feature dependence.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 30
Decision-Value Attribution in Predict-then-Optimize Systems
arXiv:2606. 29878v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Predictive models are increasingly embedded in operational decision-making, yet standard explanation methods typically explain forecasts rather than the decisions those forecasts induce.
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14
Explanations-Driven Active Feature Acquisition for Algorithmic Recourse
The paper introduces Explanation-Driven Feature Acquisition (EDFA), a method that jointly optimizes algorithmic recourse and feature acquisition by selecting features based on explanatory value per unit cost. Using Markov Blanket theory, EDFA unifies various explanation types and provides distribution‑free validity guarantees for recourse derived from partial information. Experiments on seven datasets show that EDFA requires fewer features than existing active feature acquisition baselines while maintaining accuracy and producing more actionable recourse.
arXiv AI
Jun 2
From Features to Actions: Explainability in Traditional and Agentic AI Systems
arXiv:2602. 06841v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Over the last decade, Explainable AI has primarily focused on interpreting individual model predictions, producing post-hoc explanations that relate inputs to outputs under a fixed decision structure.