aiqbench analysis
This research proposes a hypothesis-testing framework using Weight of Evidence to rigorously evaluate the stability and alignment of feature importance methods like LIME and SHAP. By quantifying how well attribution scores support specific hypotheses, the work offers a principled way to assess XAI tools beyond simple score visualization. The findings provide theoretical links between evidence weight and attribution variance, advancing the reliability of explainable AI techniques.
Assessing Alignment and Stability of Feature Importance Explanations via Weight of Evidence
arXiv:2609.00090v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Feature importance Methods (FIMs) are widely used in Explainable AI to interpret model predictions, yet attribution scores alone often provide limited insight into the underlying reasoning process. In this work, we introduce a novel perspective by embedding FIMs within a hypothesis-testing framework based on Weight of Evidence (WoE). We quantify how strongly the observed evidence supports any given hypothesis on feature importance. The reference hypothesis can stem from domain knowledge, ground truth, or be derived from the FIM itself. This formulation enables a principled evaluation of FIMs, capturing both their alignment with prior knowledge and their variability. We further provide theoretical results linking WoE to attribution variance. Empirical results shows the applicability and flexibility of our strategy analyzing LIME and SHAP explanations in settings with different reference hypotheses. Overall, our framework offers a complementary tool for assessing FIMs through a contrastive, evidence-based lens.
Abstract:Feature importance Methods (FIMs) are widely used in Explainable AI to interpret model predictions, yet attribution scores alone often provide limited insight into the underlying reasoning process. In this work, we introduce a novel perspective by embedding FIMs within a hypothesis-testing framework based on Weight of Evidence (WoE). We quantify how strongly the observed evidence supports any given hypothesis on feature importance. The reference hypothesis can stem from domain knowledge, ground truth, or be derived from the FIM itself. This formulation enables a principled evaluation of FIMs, capturing both their alignment with prior knowledge and their variability. We further provide theoretical results linking WoE to attribution variance. Empirical results shows the applicability and flexibility of our strategy analyzing LIME and SHAP explanations in settings with different reference hypotheses. Overall, our framework offers a complementary tool for assessing FIMs through a contrastive, evidence-based lens.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.00090 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.00090v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.00090 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 240 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026