pith. sign in

hub Mixed citations

On the robustness of interpretability methods

Mixed citation behavior. Most common role is background (60%).

15 Pith papers citing it
Background 60% of classified citations
abstract

We argue that robustness of explanations---i.e., that similar inputs should give rise to similar explanations---is a key desideratum for interpretability. We introduce metrics to quantify robustness and demonstrate that current methods do not perform well according to these metrics. Finally, we propose ways that robustness can be enforced on existing interpretability approaches.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 3 method 2

citation-polarity summary

representative citing papers

Explaining Predictions from Tree-based Boosting Ensembles

cs.LG · 2019-07-04 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

Develops a method to find minimal input perturbations that flip GBDT predictions by extending random-forest counterfactuals to account for sequential tree dependencies and negative-gradient training.

Interpretability Can Be Actionable

cs.LG · 2026-05-11 · conditional · novelty 6.0

Interpretability research should be judged by actionability—the degree to which its insights support concrete decisions and interventions—rather than explanatory power alone.

NEURON: A Neuro-symbolic System for Grounded Clinical Explainability

cs.AI · 2026-05-02 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

NEURON raises AUC from 0.74-0.77 to 0.84-0.88 on MIMIC-IV heart-failure mortality prediction while lifting human-aligned explanation scores from 0.50 to 0.85 by grounding SHAP values in SNOMED CT and patient notes via RAG-LLM.

GESD: Beyond Outcome-Oriented Fairness

cs.LG · 2026-05-14 · unverdicted · novelty 5.0

The paper proposes GESD, a procedural fairness metric for group disparities in explanation stability and robustness, and integrates it into the FEU multi-objective optimization framework.

citing papers explorer

Showing 15 of 15 citing papers.