Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

The Out-of-Distribution Problem in Explainability and Search Methods for Feature Importance 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 2106.00786 v2 pith:SZXMBGDN submitted 2021-06-01 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

The Out-of-Distribution Problem in Explainability and Search Methods for Feature Importance Explanations

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords explanationsmodelexplanationfeaturesmethodssearchcompareexperiments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Feature importance (FI) estimates are a popular form of explanation, and they are commonly created and evaluated by computing the change in model confidence caused by removing certain input features at test time. For example, in the standard Sufficiency metric, only the top-k most important tokens are kept. In this paper, we study several under-explored dimensions of FI explanations, providing conceptual and empirical improvements for this form of explanation. First, we advance a new argument for why it can be problematic to remove features from an input when creating or evaluating explanations: the fact that these counterfactual inputs are out-of-distribution (OOD) to models implies that the resulting explanations are socially misaligned. The crux of the problem is that the model prior and random weight initialization influence the explanations (and explanation metrics) in unintended ways. To resolve this issue, we propose a simple alteration to the model training process, which results in more socially aligned explanations and metrics. Second, we compare among five approaches for removing features from model inputs. We find that some methods produce more OOD counterfactuals than others, and we make recommendations for selecting a feature-replacement function. Finally, we introduce four search-based methods for identifying FI explanations and compare them to strong baselines, including LIME, Anchors, and Integrated Gradients. Through experiments with six diverse text classification datasets, we find that the only method that consistently outperforms random search is a Parallel Local Search (PLS) that we introduce. Improvements over the second-best method are as large as 5.4 points for Sufficiency and 17 points for Comprehensiveness. All supporting code for experiments in this paper is publicly available at https://github.com/peterbhase/ExplanationSearch.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Exposure is not manifestation: measurement target and output resolution jointly determine which behavioural-faithfulness evaluator wins

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Small hyperbolic models (146M–3B) report 100% creative-seed preference, 90.7% compliance-gap detection, and a selective-gating skeleton–wallpaper memory pilot as a companion-AI stack.

  2. Exposure is not manifestation: measurement target and output resolution jointly determine which behavioural-faithfulness evaluator wins

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    On the same 720 replies, scoring exposure versus manifestation shifts the auditor-judge gap by ~0.2 AUROC and can reverse their ranking, so single detection AUROCs are under-specified.

  3. How to use and interpret activation patching

    cs.LG 2024-04 accept novelty 5.0

    Activation patching provides evidence about neural network circuits when the choice of metric is aligned with the hypothesis and common interpretation errors are avoided.