Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

On Baselines for Local Feature Attributions

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 2101.00905 v1 pith:DN3HNKQL submitted 2021-01-04 cs.LG

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

High-performing predictive models, such as neural nets, usually operate as black boxes, which raises serious concerns about their interpretability. Local feature attribution methods help to explain black box models and are therefore a powerful tool for assessing the reliability and fairness of predictions. To this end, most attribution models compare the importance of input features with a reference value, often called baseline. Recent studies show that the baseline can heavily impact the quality of feature attributions. Yet, we frequently find simplistic baselines, such as the zero vector, in practice. In this paper, we show empirically that baselines can significantly alter the discriminative power of feature attributions. We conduct our analysis on tabular data sets, thus complementing recent works on image data. Besides, we propose a new taxonomy of baseline methods. Our experimental study illustrates the sensitivity of popular attribution models to the baseline, thus laying the foundation for a more in-depth discussion on sensible baseline methods for tabular data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Reconciling Privacy and Explainability in High-Stakes: A Systematic Inquiry

    cs.CR 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gradient-based explainers yield almost uncorrelated attributions on DP-trained chest X-ray models, so the authors recommend privatizing explanations from a non-private model instead.

  2. Saliency Maps are Ambiguous: Analysis of Logical Relations on First and Second Order Attributions

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On synthetic AND/OR/XOR datasets with perfectly accurate models, every tested saliency method sometimes ranks a truly irrelevant input above a necessary one, so the scores cannot be trusted as relevance rankings.

  3. Sparks of Explainability: Recent Advancements in Explaining Large Vision Models

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A compilation of prior peer-reviewed methods arguing that explaining vision models needs concept extraction and human alignment, not just saliency maps.

Pith tools