aiqbench analysis
This research highlights a critical oversight in ML operations: explanation fidelity degrades independently of model performance when data distributions shift, even if the core feature-target relationship remains stable. The findings underscore that local explanations are transient artifacts tied to specific model versions and require dedicated monitoring protocols, particularly in regulated sectors like finance and healthcare.
Does Explainability Survive Data Drift?
arXiv:2610.05379v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Model performance monitoring is a standard practice in machine learning deployments. Detection performance is tracked continuously, and model decay is expected as the relationship between the feature and target variables degrades, a phenomenon known as concept drift. Explanation fidelity, however, is rarely monitored with the same discipline, even in domains such as financial systems, healthcare, and other regulated environments where explanations are required for governance purposes. This paper investigates whether explanations can decay under data drift, even when the feature-target relationship remains stable, and whether explanations produced before drift occurs remain faithful to the decisions of the model that replaces them. Using the IEEE-CIS Transaction Fraud Detection dataset, we find statistically significant covariate shift but no statistically significant evidence of concept drift under the implemented conditional-drift tests, thereby providing an empirical setting in which input distributional change can be studied separately from detectable changes in the feature-target relationship. Local explanations are generated with ExIFFI and evaluated at three levels: path validity, structural behaviour, and fidelity under controlled intervention. Results show that while prior explanations retain substantial decision relevance to a retrained model, they are consistently less faithful than newly generated explanations, with no evidence of a systematically widening gap across the evaluated windows. The study shows that explanation fidelity requires its own monitoring, that structural stability of explanations does not guarantee functional fidelity, and that explanations should be treated as artifacts tied to the model that produced them.
Title:Does Explainability Survive Data Drift?
Abstract:Model performance monitoring is a standard practice in machine learning deployments. Detection performance is tracked continuously, and model decay is expected as the relationship between the feature and target variables degrades, a phenomenon known as concept drift. Explanation fidelity, however, is rarely monitored with the same discipline, even in domains such as financial systems, healthcare, and other regulated environments where explanations are required for governance purposes. This paper investigates whether explanations can decay under data drift, even when the feature-target relationship remains stable, and whether explanations produced before drift occurs remain faithful to the decisions of the model that replaces them. Using the IEEE-CIS Transaction Fraud Detection dataset, we find statistically significant covariate shift but no statistically significant evidence of concept drift under the implemented conditional-drift tests, thereby providing an empirical setting in which input distributional change can be studied separately from detectable changes in the feature-target relationship. Local explanations are generated with ExIFFI and evaluated at three levels: path validity, structural behaviour, and fidelity under controlled intervention. Results show that while prior explanations retain substantial decision relevance to a retrained model, they are consistently less faithful than newly generated explanations, with no evidence of a systematically widening gap across the evaluated windows. The study shows that explanation fidelity requires its own monitoring, that structural stability of explanations does not guarantee functional fidelity, and that explanations should be treated as artifacts tied to the model that produced them.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
I.2.6; I.2.8; I.5.1; I.5.2
arXiv:2610.05379 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.05379v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.05379 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 · 344 words
Related coverage

AI Transparency: Governance, Explainability, and Data Practices
Databricks · Jul 20, 2026

Runtime AI Defense in a shared responsibility model
Sysdig Blog · Oct 8, 2026

Presentation: The Agent Harness: Control Planes, Invariants, and Approval Boundaries for Production AI Agents
InfoQ · Sep 21, 2026

Article: Architecting Secure and Scalable Facial Verification Systems
InfoQ · Sep 18, 2026