Papers › Incorporating Attribution Importance for Improving Faithfulness Metrics

Incorporating Attribution Importance for Improving Faithfulness Metrics

17 May 2023arXiv:2305.10496archive 2025-07-28

Zhixue Zhao, Nikolaos Aletras

Feature attribution methods (FAs) are popular approaches for providing insights into the model reasoning process of making predictions. The more faithful a FA is, the more accurately it reflects which parts of the input are more important for the prediction. Widely used faithfulness metrics, such as sufficiency and comprehensiveness use a hard erasure criterion, i.e. entirely removing or retaining the top most important tokens ranked by a given FA and observing the changes in predictive likelihood. However, this hard criterion ignores the importance of each individual token, treating them all equally for computing sufficiency and comprehensiveness. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective soft erasure criterion. Instead of entirely removing or retaining tokens from the input, we randomly mask parts of the token vector representations proportionately to their FA importance. Extensive experiments across various natural language processing tasks and different FAs show that our soft-sufficiency and soft-comprehensiveness metrics consistently prefer more faithful explanations compared to hard sufficiency and comprehensiveness. Our code: https://github.com/casszhao/SoftFaith

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

6 samples harvested; 4 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from casszhao/softfaith. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections