justification
Regional Explanations: Bridging Local and Global Variable Importance
Amoukou, Salim I., Brunel, Nicolas J-B.
We analyze two widely used local attribution methods, Local Shapley Values and LIME, which aim to quantify the contribution of a feature value $x_i$ to a specific prediction $f(x_1, \dots, x_p)$. Despite their widespread use, we identify fundamental limitations in their ability to reliably detect locally important features, even under ideal conditions with exact computations and independent features. We argue that a sound local attribution method should not assign importance to features that neither influence the model output (e.g., features with zero coefficients in a linear model) nor exhibit statistical dependence with functionality-relevant features. We demonstrate that both Local SV and LIME violate this fundamental principle. To address this, we propose R-LOCO (Regional Leave Out COvariates), which bridges the gap between local and global explanations and provides more accurate attributions. R-LOCO segments the input space into regions with similar feature importance characteristics. It then applies global attribution methods within these regions, deriving an instance's feature contributions from its regional membership. This approach delivers more faithful local attributions while avoiding local explanation instability and preserving instance-specific detail often lost in global methods.
Learning-to-Defer with Expert-Conditioned Advice
Montreuil, Yannis, Montreuil, Leïna, Carlier, Axel, Ng, Lai Xing, Ooi, Wei Tsang
Learning-to-Defer routes each input to the expert that minimizes expected cost, but it assumes that the information available to every expert is fixed at decision time. Many modern systems violate this assumption: after selecting an expert, one may also choose what additional information that expert should receive, such as retrieved documents, tool outputs, or escalation context. We study this problem and call it Learning-to-Defer with advice. We show that a broad family of natural separated surrogates, which learn routing and advice with distinct heads, is inconsistent even in the smallest non-trivial setting. We then introduce an augmented surrogate that operates on the composite expert--advice action space and prove an $\mathcal{H}$-consistency guarantee together with an excess-risk transfer bound, yielding recovery of the Bayes-optimal policy in the limit. Experiments on tabular, language, and multi-modal tasks show that the resulting method improves over standard Learning-to-Defer while adapting its advice-acquisition behavior to the cost regime; a synthetic benchmark confirms the failure mode predicted for separated surrogates.
- Asia > Singapore (0.04)
- North America > United States > Georgia > Fulton County > Atlanta (0.04)
- Europe > Monaco (0.04)
- Europe > France > Occitanie > Haute-Garonne > Toulouse (0.04)
- Asia > Japan > Honshū > Kantō > Tokyo Metropolis Prefecture > Tokyo (0.14)
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- North America > United States > Michigan (0.04)
- Asia > China > Guangdong Province > Shenzhen (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.93)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.92)
- Information Technology (0.46)
- Energy > Power Industry (0.45)
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.14)
- Europe > Kosovo > District of Gjilan > Kamenica (0.05)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Europe > Switzerland > Zürich > Zürich (0.14)
- Europe > Belgium > Brussels-Capital Region > Brussels (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > Victoria > Melbourne (0.04)
- (4 more...)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Vision (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (0.94)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.46)
- Information Technology (0.46)
- Health & Medicine (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Vision (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning > Clustering (0.46)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.46)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area (0.47)
- Health & Medicine > Diagnostic Medicine > Imaging (0.46)