Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Survey on the Robustness of Feature Importance and Counterfactual Explanations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2111.00358 v2 pith:QOIPPCOB submitted 2021-10-30 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords explanationsrobustnesssurveybehaviourlocalmethodsmodelsanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

There exist several methods that aim to address the crucial task of understanding the behaviour of AI/ML models. Arguably, the most popular among them are local explanations that focus on investigating model behaviour for individual instances. Several methods have been proposed for local analysis, but relatively lesser effort has gone into understanding if the explanations are robust and accurately reflect the behaviour of underlying models. In this work, we present a survey of the works that analysed the robustness of two classes of local explanations (feature importance and counterfactual explanations) that are popularly used in analysing AI/ML models in finance. The survey aims to unify existing definitions of robustness, introduces a taxonomy to classify different robustness approaches, and discusses some interesting results. Finally, the survey introduces some pointers about extending current robustness analysis approaches so as to identify reliable explainability methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Argumentative Ensembling for Robust Recourse under Model Multiplicity

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A bipolar-argumentation framework jointly selects models and counterfactuals so that returned counterfactuals are valid on all selected models, at the cost of majority voting.

Pith tools