CID: Measuring Feature Importance Through Counterfactual Distributions

Feature importance Methods (FIMs) are widely used in Explainable AI to interpret model predictions, yet attribution scores alone often provide limited insight into the underlying reasoning process. In this work, we introduce a novel perspective by embedding FIMs within a hypothesis-testing framework based on Weight of Evidence (WoE). We quantify how strongly the observed evidence supports any given hypothesis on feature importance. The reference hypothesis can stem from domain knowledge, ground truth, or be derived from the FIM itself. This formulation enables a principled evaluation of FIMs, capturing both their alignment with prior knowledge and their variability. We further provide theoretical results linking WoE to attribution variance. Empirical results shows the applicability and flexibility of our strategy analyzing LIME and SHAP explanations in settings with different reference hypotheses. Overall, our framework offers a complementary tool for assessing FIMs through a contrastive, evidence-based lens.

Feature importance is central to interpretable machine learning, but the term "importance" encompasses several fundamentally different notions of relevance. We develop a unified perspective based on null importance: a population-level characterization of when a feature is irrelevant under a specified notion of relevance. We consider standard notions of null importance arising from marginal and conditional statistical relevance, predictive risk, functional invariance, and causal effects, and show how these notions answer different scientific questions. We illustrate the framework in two applications in which the distinction is particularly consequential: algorithmic fairness, where common fairness criteria correspond to different notions of null importance, and genomic perturbation modeling, where different notions of relevance lead to different conclusions about what a prediction model has learned. The framework connects three aspects of feature analysis: the scientific question defining relevance, the data and model assumptions that shape how different null notions relate, and the methods used to assess importance. We establish sufficient conditions under which null notions coincide and give counterexamples showing how they diverge when those conditions fail. We then characterize which nulls different method families target and when their zero-importance statistics identify those targets. Finally, simulations spanning feature dependence, redundancy, nonlinearity, hidden features and other standard phenomena, along with case studies on image and multiomics data, provide empirical evidence for these theoretical distinctions and their practical consequences. Taken together, these results provide a common statistical language for relating scientific questions, data-generating assumptions, and algorithms, and clarify the conclusions that feature-importance analyses can support.

Prototype-based explanations offer an intuitive, example-based approach to support the interpretability of machine learning black box classifiers but often lack feature-level granularity. We introduce a framework that integrates feature importance at two levels to address this gap. First, for local explanations, we propose \textit{alike parts}: a method that uses feature importance scores to highlight the most relevant, shared feature subsets between a classified instance and its nearest prototype, guiding user attention. Second, we augment the global prototype selection objective function with a feature importance term to actively promote diversity in the feature attributions of the selected prototypes. Experiments on six benchmark datasets show that this augmented selection process maintains or, in some cases, increases the prediction fidelity of the surrogate model, suggesting that feature diversity does not compromise model fidelity.