Towards the Unification and Robustness of Perturbation and Gradient\n Based Explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As machine learning black boxes are increasingly being deployed in critical\ndomains such as healthcare and criminal justice, there has been a growing\nemphasis on developing techniques for explaining these black boxes in a post\nhoc manner. In this work, we analyze two popular post hoc interpretation\ntechniques: SmoothGrad which is a gradient based method, and a variant of LIME\nwhich is a perturbation based method. More specifically, we derive explicit\nclosed form expressions for the explanations output by these two methods and\nshow that they both converge to the same explanation in expectation, i.e., when\nthe number of perturbed samples used by these methods is large. We then\nleverage this connection to establish other desirable properties, such as\nrobustness, for these techniques. We also derive finite sample complexity\nbounds for the number of perturbations required for these methods to converge\nto their expected explanation. Finally, we empirically validate our theory\nusing extensive experimentation on both synthetic and real world datasets.\n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".