Which Explanation Should I Choose? A Function Approximation Perspective to Characterizing Post Hoc Explanations
Tessa Han, Suraj Srinivas, Himabindu Lakkaraju
Abstract
A critical problem in the field of post hoc explainability is the lack of a common foundational goal among methods. For example, some methods are motivated by function approximation, some by game theoretic notions, and some by obtaining clean visualizations. This fragmentation of goals causes not only an inconsistent conceptual understanding of explanations but also the practical challenge of not knowing which method to use when. In this work, we begin to address these challenges by unifying eight popular post hoc explanation methods (LIME, C-LIME, KernelSHAP, Occlusion, Vanilla Gradients, Gradients × Input, SmoothGrad, and Integrated Gradients). We show that these methods all perform local function approximation of the black-box model, differing only in the neighbourhood and loss function used to perform the approximation. This unification enables us to (1) state a no free lunch theorem for explanation methods, demonstrating that no method can perform optimally across all neighbourhoods, and (2) provide a guiding principle to choose among methods based on faithfulness to the black-box model. We empirically validate these theoretical results using various real-world datasets, model classes, and prediction tasks. By bringing diverse explanation methods into a common framework, this work (1) advances the conceptual understanding of these methods, revealing their shared local function approximation objective, properties, and relation to one another, and (2) guides the use of these methods in practice, providing a principled approach to choose among methods and paving the way for the creation of new ones. As machine learning models become increasingly complex and are increasingly deployed in highstakes settings (e.g., medicine [1], law [2], and finance [3]), there is a growing emphasis on understanding how models make predictions so that decision-makers (e.g., doctors, judges, and loan officers) can assess the extent to which they can trust model predictions. To this end, several post hoc explanation methods have been developed, including and Integrated Gradients [11]. However, different methods have different goals. Such differences lead to both conceptual and practical challenges to understanding and using explanation methods, thwarting progress in the field. From a conceptual standpoint, the misalignment of goals among methods leads to an inconsistent view of explanations. What is an explanation? This is unclear as different methods have different notions of explanation. Depending on the method, explanations may be local function approximations (LIME and C-LIME), Shapley values (SHAP), raw gradients (Vanilla Gradients), raw gradients 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022).
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 a404ba9d-1989-435f-a399-e03a7f001410Cited by top-tier papers14
- GLIME: General, Stable and Local LIME ExplanationZeren Tan, Yang Tian, Jian LiNeurIPS 2023 · 56 citations
- Don't trust your eyes: on the (un)reliability of feature visualizationsRobert Geirhos, Roland S. Zimmermann, Blair L. Bilodeau, Wieland Brendel et al.ICML 2024 · 38 citations
- Which Models have Perceptually-Aligned Gradients? An Explanation via Off-Manifold RobustnessSuraj Srinivas, Sebastian Bordt, Himabindu LakkarajuNeurIPS 2023 · 24 citations
- Stability Guarantees for Feature Attributions with Multiplicative SmoothingAnton Xue, Rajeev Alur, Eric WongNeurIPS 2023 · 18 citations
- Discriminative Feature Attributions: Bridging Post Hoc Explainability and Inherent InterpretabilityUsha Bhalla, Suraj Srinivas, Himabindu LakkarajuNeurIPS 2023 · 18 citations
Builds on2
- Towards the Unification and Robustness of Perturbation and Gradient Based ExplanationsSushant Agarwal, Shahin Jabbari, Chirag Agarwal, Sohini Upadhyay et al.ICML 2021 · 71 citations
- Rethinking the Role of Gradient-based Attribution Methods for Model InterpretabilitySuraj Srinivas, François FleuretICLR 2021 · 46 citations
Related papers
- Tackling the XAI Disagreement Problem with Adaptive Feature GroupingGabriel Laberge, Ola AhmadICLR 2026
- S-LIME: Stabilized-LIME for Model ExplanationZhengze Zhou, Giles Hooker, Fei WangKDD 2021 · 98 citations
- Sparse and Faithful Local Explanations with Piecewise Linear SurrogatesYixin Wang, Yucheng DongICML 2026
- What does LIME really see in images?Damien Garreau, Dina MardaouiICML 2021 · 49 citations
- Regional Explanations: Bridging Local and Global Variable ImportanceSalim I. Amoukou, Nicolas J.-B. BrunelNeurIPS 2025
