Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40290784›Full record

ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2023

Don't be fooled: label leakage in explanation methods and the importance of their quantitative evaluation.

Neil Jethani, Adriel Saporta, Rajesh Ranganath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Neil JethaniGrossman School of Medicine, Courant Institute New York University.
Adriel SaportaCourant Institute New York University.
Rajesh RanganathCourant Institute, Center for Data Science New York University.

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAININGT32GM007308 · NIGMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI PHILIPS, MARK REID · 1985 to 2019
$23.2M
Medical Scientist Research Service AwardT32GM136573 · NIGMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SULMAN, ERIK · 2020 to 2024
$6.8M
Deep probabilistic predictive models for stroke and coronary heart diseaseR01HL148248 · NHLBI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI RANGANATH, RAJESH · 2019 to 2023
$3.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL148248NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007308NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM136573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feature attribution methods identify which features of an input most influence a model's output. Most widely-used feature attribution methods (such as SHAP, LIME, and Grad-CAM) are "class-dependent" methods in that they generate a feature attribution vector as a function of class. In this work, we demonstrate that class-dependent methods can "leak" information about the selected class, making that class appear more likely than it is. Thus, an end user runs the risk of drawing false conclusions when interpreting an explanation generated by a class-dependent method. In contrast, we introduce "distribution-aware" methods, which favor explanations that keep the label's distribution close to its distribution given all features of the input. We introduce SHAP-KL and FastSHAP-KL, two baseline distribution-aware methods that compute Shapley values. Finally, we perform a comprehensive evaluation of seven class-dependent and three distribution-aware methods on three clinical datasets of different high-dimensional data types: images, biosignals, and text.

Identifiers

PMID40290784
PMCPMC12022845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.