aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a distribution-based framework to assess the stability of feature attribution scores in explainable AI, addressing variability caused by stochastic components in current methods. By quantifying separability within ranked vectors and comparing robustness across datasets, the study offers a rigorous criterion for evaluating which explainer rankings remain reliable under different conditions. This work advances machine learning interpretability by providing tools to validate the consistency of black-box model explanations without relying on hype or unverified claims.
Measuring Explainer Stability via Attribution Separability
arXiv:2608.02697v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Attribution methods (AMs) assign an importance score to each feature and are widely adopted to explain black-box models. However, most methods can produce variable attribution scores due to stochastic components in their definition. In this paper, we propose a distribution-based framework to capture the stability of attribution scores. In particular, our approach allows to understand the degree of separability in the ranked attribution vector and obtain the largest index for which a feature ranking remains reliable. We further extend this framework to compare AMs based on the robustness of their rankings across a dataset. Through experiments, we demonstrate how to apply our method to evaluate explainer stability. Overall, our approach provides a complementary criterion for evaluating the stability of AMs.
Abstract:Attribution methods (AMs) assign an importance score to each feature and are widely adopted to explain black-box models. However, most methods can produce variable attribution scores due to stochastic components in their definition. In this paper, we propose a distribution-based framework to capture the stability of attribution scores. In particular, our approach allows to understand the degree of separability in the ranked attribution vector and obtain the largest index for which a feature ranking remains reliable. We further extend this framework to compare AMs based on the robustness of their rankings across a dataset. Through experiments, we demonstrate how to apply our method to evaluate explainer stability. Overall, our approach provides a complementary criterion for evaluating the stability of AMs.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.02697 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.02697v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.02697 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 · 217 words
Related coverage
In open RLVR, “improvement” depends on the instrument — a small GRPO testbed separating what training optimizes, measures, and teaches
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026
1 Layer Induction Heads and Some Research
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026

[AINews] DeepSeek v4.1-Flash: 763B-P8B-D16B novel causal Encoder–Decoder architecture with vision marks the Return of the Whale
Latent Space · Sep 12, 2026