Rethinking Explanation Evaluation under the Retraining Scheme

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08281v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 01:50:17 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Explanation Evaluation under the Retraining Scheme
• Authors: Yi Cai, Thibaud Ardoin, Mayank Gulati, Gerhard Wunder,
• Abstract summary: This work investigates the misalignment between empirical observations and theoretical expectations.<n>We propose novel variants that jointly structure a comprehensive perspective on explanation evaluation.<n>Following our proposed schemes, empirical results across various data scales provide deeper insights into the performance of carefully selected explainers.
• Score: 9.354592471340938
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Feature attribution has gained prominence as a tool for explaining model decisions, yet evaluating explanation quality remains challenging due to the absence of ground-truth explanations. To circumvent this, explanation-guided input manipulation has emerged as an indirect evaluation strategy, measuring explanation effectiveness through the impact of input modifications on model outcomes during inference. Despite the widespread use, a major concern with inference-based schemes is the distribution shift caused by such manipulations, which undermines the reliability of their assessments. The retraining-based scheme ROAR overcomes this issue by adapting the model to the altered data distribution. However, its evaluation results often contradict the theoretical foundations of widely accepted explainers. This work investigates this misalignment between empirical observations and theoretical expectations. In particular, we identify the sign issue as a key factor responsible for residual information that ultimately distorts retraining-based evaluation. Based on the analysis, we show that a straightforward reframing of the evaluation process can effectively resolve the identified issue. Building on the existing framework, we further propose novel variants that jointly structure a comprehensive perspective on explanation evaluation. These variants largely improve evaluation efficiency over the standard retraining protocol, thereby enhancing practical applicability for explainer selection and benchmarking. Following our proposed schemes, empirical results across various data scales provide deeper insights into the performance of carefully selected explainers, revealing open challenges and future directions in explainability research.

Related papers

• Reliable and Reproducible Demographic Inference for Fairness in Face Analysis [63.46525489354455]
  We propose a fully reproducible DAI pipeline that replaces conventional end-to-end training with a modular transfer learning approach.<n>We audit this pipeline across three dimensions: accuracy, fairness, and a newly introduced notion of robustness, defined via intra-identity consistency.<n>Our results show that the proposed method outperforms strong baselines, particularly on ethnicity, which is the more challenging attribute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T12:22:02Z)
• Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness [49.35494016290887]
  We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities.<n>Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T17:40:31Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Explanatory Model Monitoring to Understand the Effects of Feature Shifts on Performance [61.06245197347139]
  We propose a novel approach to explain the behavior of a black-box model under feature shifts. We refer to our method that combines concepts from Optimal Transport and Shapley Values as Explanatory Performance Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T18:28:19Z)
• Mitigating Distribution Shift in Model-based Offline RL via Shifts-aware Reward Learning [36.01269673940484]
  This paper offers a comprehensive analysis that disentangles the problem into two fundamental components: model bias and policy shift.<n>Our theoretical and empirical investigations reveal how these factors distort value estimation and policy optimization.<n>We derive a novel shifts-aware reward through a unified probabilistic inference framework, which modifies the vanilla reward to refine value learning and facilitate policy training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T04:25:09Z)
• Toward Understanding the Disagreement Problem in Neural Network Feature Attribution [0.8057006406834466]
  neural networks have demonstrated their remarkable ability to discern intricate patterns and relationships from raw data. Understanding the inner workings of these black box models remains challenging, yet crucial for high-stake decisions. Our work addresses this confusion by investigating the explanations' fundamental and distributional behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T12:45:59Z)
• Provable Representation with Efficient Planning for Partial Observable Reinforcement Learning [74.67655210734338]
  In most real-world reinforcement learning applications, state information is only partially observable, which breaks the Markov decision process assumption. We develop a representation-based perspective that leads to a coherent framework and tractable algorithmic approach for practical reinforcement learning from partial observations. We empirically demonstrate the proposed algorithm can surpass state-of-the-art performance with partial observations across various benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T23:56:58Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Counterfactuals of Counterfactuals: a back-translation-inspired approach to analyse counterfactual editors [3.4253416336476246]
  We focus on the analysis of counterfactual, contrastive explanations. We propose a new back translation-inspired evaluation methodology. We show that by iteratively feeding the counterfactual to the explainer we can obtain valuable insights into the behaviour of both the predictor and the explainer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T16:04:28Z)
• Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models [77.34726150561087]
  We define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. This paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T05:59:50Z)
• Accurate and Robust Feature Importance Estimation under Distribution Shifts [49.58991359544005]
  PRoFILE is a novel feature importance estimation method. We show significant improvements over state-of-the-art approaches, both in terms of fidelity and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T05:29:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.