However, there still exist many properties of contrastive learning that are not guaranteed.

Explanations of time series models are useful for high stakes applications like healthcare but have received little attention in machine learning literature.

We propose an empirical measure of the approximate accuracy of feature importance estimates in deep neural networks. Our results across several large-scale image classification datasets show that many popular interpretability methods produce estimates of feature importance that are not better than a random designation of feature importance.

Feature importance estimates that inform users about the degree to which given inputs influence the output of a predictive model are crucial for understanding, validating, and interpreting machine-learning models. However, providing fast and accurate estimates of feature importance for high-dimensional data, and quantifying the uncertainty of such estimates remain open challenges. Here, we frame the task of providing explanations for the decisions of machine-learning models as a causal learning task, and train causal explanation (CXPlain) models that learn to estimate to what degree certain inputs cause outputs in another machine-learning model. CXPlain can, once trained, be used to explain the target model in little time, and enables the quantification of the uncertainty associated with its feature importance estimates via bootstrap ensembling. We present experiments that demonstrate that CXPlain is significantly more accurate and faster than existing model-agnostic methods for estimating feature importance. In addition, we confirm that the uncertainty estimates provided by CXPlain ensembles are strongly correlated with their ability to accurately estimate feature importance on held-out data.

Explaining machine learning models is an important and increasingly popular area of research interest. The Shapley value from game theory has been proposed as a prime approach to compute feature importance towards model predictions on images, text, tabular data, and recently graph neural networks (GNNs) on graphs. In this work, we revisit the appropriateness of the Shapley value for GNN explanation, where the task is to identify the most important subgraph and constituent nodes for GNN predictions. We claim that the Shapley value is a non-ideal choice for graph data because it is by definition not structure-aware. We propose a Graph Structure-aware eXplanation (GStarX) method to leverage the critical graph structure information to improve the explanation. Specifically, we define a scoring function based on a new structure-aware value from the cooperative game theory proposed by Hamiache and Navarro (HN). When used to score node importance, the HN value utilizes graph structures to attribute cooperation surplus between neighbor nodes, resembling message passing in GNNs, so that node importance scores reflect not only the node feature importance, but also the node structural roles. We demonstrate that GStarX produces qualitatively more intuitive explanations, and quantitatively improves explanation fidelity over strong baselines on chemical graph property prediction and text graph sentiment classification.

Saliency methods are used extensively to highlight the importance of input features in model predictions. These methods are mostly used in vision and language tasks, and their applications to time series data is relatively unexplored. In this paper, we set out to extensively compare the performance of various saliency-based interpretability methods across diverse neural architectures, including Recurrent Neural Network, Temporal Convolutional Networks, and Transformers in a new benchmark of synthetic time series data. We propose and report multiple metrics to empirically evaluate the performance of saliency methods for detecting feature importance over time using both precision (i.e., whether identified features contain meaningful signals) and recall (i.e., the number of features with signal identified as important). Through several experiments, we show that (i) in general, network architectures and saliency methods fail to reliably and accurately identify feature importance over time in time series data, (ii) this failure is mainly due to the conflation of time and feature domains, and (iii) the quality of saliency maps can be improved substantially by using our proposed two-step temporal saliency rescaling (TSR) approach that first calculates the importance of each time step before calculating the importance of each feature at a time step.

Feature importance ranking has become a powerful tool for explainable AI. However, its nature of combinatorial optimization poses a great challenge for deep learning. In this paper, we propose a novel dual-net architecture consisting of operator and selector for discovery of an optimal feature subset of a fixed size and ranking the importance of those features in the optimal subset simultaneously. During learning, the operator is trained for a supervised learning task via optimal feature subset candidates generated by the selector that learns predicting the learning performance of the operator working on different optimal subset candidates. We develop an alternate learning algorithm that trains two nets jointly and incorporates a stochastic local search procedure into learning to address the combinatorial optimization challenge. In deployment, the selector generates an optimal feature subset and ranks feature importance, while the operator makes predictions based on the optimal subset for test data. A thorough evaluation on synthetic, benchmark and real data sets suggests that our approach outperforms several state-of-the-art feature importance ranking and supervised feature selection methods.

In this work, we propose a simple and computationally efficient framework for evaluating whether machine learning models align with the structure of the data they learn from; that is, whether the model says what the data says. Unlike existing interpretability methods that focus exclusively on explaining model behavior, our approach establishes a baseline derived directly from the data itself. Drawing inspiration from Rubin's Potential Outcomes Framework, we quantify how strongly each feature separates the two outcome groups in a binary classification task, moving beyond traditional descriptive statistics to estimate each feature's effect on the outcome. By comparing these data-derived feature rankings with model-based explanations, we provide practitioners with an interpretable and model-agnostic method for assessing model-data alignment.

Assessing the importance of individual features in Machine Learning is critical to understand the model's decision-making process. While numerous methods exist, the lack of a definitive ground truth for comparison highlights the need for alternative, well-founded measures. This paper introduces a novel post-hoc local feature importance method called Counterfactual Importance Distribution (CID). We generate two sets of positive and negative counterfactuals, model their distributions using Kernel Density Estimation, and rank features based on a distributional dissimilarity measure. This measure, grounded in a rigorous mathematical framework, satisfies key properties required to function as a valid metric. We showcase the effectiveness of our method by comparing with well-established local feature importance explainers. Our method not only offers complementary perspectives to existing approaches, but also improves performance on faithfulness metrics (both for comprehensiveness and sufficiency), resulting in more faithful explanations of the system. These results highlight its potential as a valuable tool for model analysis.

Trustworthy machine learning in healthcare requires strong predictive performance, fairness, and explanations. While it is known that improving fairness can affect predictive performance, little is known about how fairness improvements influence explainability, an essential ingredient for clinical trust. Clinicians may hesitate to rely on a model whose explanations shift after fairness constraints are applied. In this study, we examine how enhancing fairness through bias mitigation techniques reshapes Shapley-based feature rankings. We quantify changes in feature importance rankings after applying fairness constraints across three datasets: pediatric urinary tract infection risk, direct anticoagulant bleeding risk, and recidivism risk. We also evaluate multiple model classes on the stability of Shapley-based rankings. We find that increasing model fairness across racial subgroups can significantly alter feature importance rankings, sometimes in different ways across groups. These results highlight the need to jointly consider accuracy, fairness, and explainability in model assessment rather than in isolation.