G. Thomas Baer

Gregor Baer, Isel Grau, Chao Zhang et al.

As machine learning models become increasingly prevalent in time series applications, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods are essential for understanding their predictions. Within XAI, feature attribution methods aim to identify which input features contribute the most to a model's prediction, with their evaluation typically relying on perturbation-based metrics. Through systematic empirical analysis across multiple datasets, model architectures, and perturbation strategies, we reveal previously overlooked class-dependent effects in these metrics: they show varying effectiveness across classes, achieving strong results for some while remaining less sensitive to others. In particular, we find that the most effective perturbation strategies often demonstrate the most pronounced class differences. Our analysis suggests that these effects arise from the learned biases of classifiers, indicating that perturbation-based evaluation may reflect specific model behaviors rather than intrinsic attribution quality. We propose an evaluation framework with a class-aware penalty term to help assess and account for these effects in evaluating feature attributions, offering particular value for class-imbalanced datasets. Although our analysis focuses on time series classification, these class-dependent effects likely extend to other structured data domains where perturbation-based evaluation is common.

Gregor Baer, Isel Grau, Chao Zhang et al.

Evaluating feature attribution methods represents a critical challenge in explainable AI (XAI), as researchers typically rely on perturbation-based metrics when ground truth is unavailable. However, recent work reveals that these evaluation metrics can show different performance across predicted classes within the same dataset. These "class-dependent evaluation effects" raise questions about whether perturbation analysis reliably measures attribution quality, with direct implications for XAI method development and evaluation trustworthiness. We investigate under which conditions these class-dependent effects arise by conducting controlled experiments with synthetic time series data where ground truth feature locations are known. We systematically vary feature types and class contrasts across binary classification tasks, then compare perturbation-based degradation scores with ground truth-based precision-recall metrics using multiple attribution methods. Our experiments demonstrate that class-dependent effects emerge with both evaluation approaches, even in simple scenarios with temporally localized features, triggered by basic variations in feature amplitude or temporal extent between classes. Most critically, we find that perturbation-based and ground truth metrics frequently yield contradictory assessments of attribution quality across classes, with weak correlations between evaluation approaches. These findings suggest that researchers should interpret perturbation-based metrics with care, as they may not always align with whether attributions correctly identify discriminating features. By showing this disconnect, our work points toward reconsidering what attribution evaluation actually measures and developing more rigorous evaluation methods that capture multiple dimensions of attribution quality.