Evaluating the Robustness of Interpretability Methods through Explanation Invariance and Equivariance
Jonathan Crabbé, Mihaela van der Schaar
Abstract
Interpretability methods are valuable only if their explanations faithfully describe the explained model. In this work, we consider neural networks whose predictions are invariant under a specific symmetry group. This includes popular architectures, ranging from convolutional to graph neural networks. Any explanation that faithfully explains this type of model needs to be in agreement with this invariance property. We formalize this intuition through the notion of explanation invariance and equivariance by leveraging the formalism from geometric deep learning. Through this rigorous formalism, we derive (1) two metrics to measure the robustness of any interpretability method with respect to the model symmetry group; (2) theoretical robustness guarantees for some popular interpretability methods and (3) a systematic approach to increase the invariance of any interpretability method with respect to a symmetry group. By empirically measuring our metrics for explanations of models associated with various modalities and symmetry groups, we derive a set of 5 guidelines to allow users and developers of interpretability methods to produce robust explanations.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 60df78f4-c980-41d3-9be6-be6a4434b457Cited by top-tier papers3
- How Interpretable Are Interpretable Graph Neural Networks?Yongqiang Chen, Yatao Bian, Bo Han, James ChengICML 2024 · 17 citations
- Towards Adversarial Robustness via Debiased High-Confidence Logit AlignmentKejia Zhang, Juanjuan Weng, Shaozi Li, Zhiming LuoICCV 2025
- One Wave To Explain Them All: A Unifying Perspective On Feature AttributionGabriel Kasmi, Amandine Brunetto, Thomas Fel, Jayneel ParekhICML 2025
Builds on11
- E(n) Equivariant Graph Neural NetworksVictor Garcia Satorras, Emiel Hoogeboom, Max WellingICML 2021 · 1,432 citations
- Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient DescentGarima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Satyen Kale, Mukund SundararajanNeurIPS 2020 · 784 citations
- Explaining Time Series Predictions with Dynamic MasksJonathan Crabbé, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2021 · 115 citations
- Concept Activation Regions: A Generalized Framework For Concept-Based ExplanationsJonathan Crabbé, Mihaela van der SchaarNeurIPS 2022 · 88 citations
- Smoothed Geometry for Robust AttributionZifan Wang, Haofan Wang, Shakul Ramkumar, Piotr Mardziel et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 67 citations
Related papers
- The Lie Derivative for Measuring Learned EquivarianceNate Gruver, Marc Anton Finzi, Micah Goldblum, Andrew Gordon WilsonICLR 2023 · 6 citations
- Evaluating Neuron Explanations: A Unified Framework with Sanity ChecksTuomas P. Oikarinen, Ge Yan, Tsui-Wei WengICML 2025
- In What Ways Are Deep Neural Networks Invariant and How Should We Measure This?Henry Kvinge, Tegan Emerson, Grayson Jorgenson, Scott Vasquez et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 15 citations
- Reconsidering Faithfulness in Regular, Self-Explainable and Domain Invariant GNNsSteve Azzolin, Antonio Longa, Stefano Teso, Andrea PasseriniICLR 2025
- LieGG: Studying Learned Lie Group GeneratorsArtem Moskalev, Anna Sepliarskaia, Ivan Sosnovik, Arnold W. M. SmeuldersNeurIPS 2022 · 39 citations
