Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

For example, our findings show that, in certain cases, the explainers predict the most relevant token to be among the tokens with zero contribution.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Summary -

The paper proposes a verification method for instance wise feature explanations. The verification framework uses an RCNN to identify two types of tokens a) the tokens that are not predictive of outcome b) the subset of clearly relevant tokens for prediction. The data used for RCNN is a pruned version of the data used to train the  black-box. The pruning eliminates data points to ensure that the tokens not selected by RCNN have no contribution to the outcome and that the model does not exhibit suffer from learning "handshakes". A handshake is defined as the set of tokens that may be spuriously missed because their information is encoded in another relevant token. This proof to identify such data points is shown and the RNN is therefore expected to be able to reliably identify 3 kinds of tokens a) Those that have zero contribution to the outcome. b) Those that definitely have some contribution to the outcome and c) those that could be relevant or noisy. Three instance-wise feature selection methods are compared. Results are provided on 3 metrics. a) % instances for which the most important tokes provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens, b) % of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a relevant token, and c) Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any obviously relevant tokens.

Clarifications and concerns:
1. For the dataset considered here, I would like to see the distribution of the irrelevant, clearly relevant and unsure if they are relevant tokens as detected by the RCNN. How does this change if I further prune the dataset after ensuring that handshake and other issues have been eliminated. The main concern I have is the idea of verifying other explanations using a neural network itself. I can train the RCNN neural network with half the data (and satisfy the properties the authors mention) and my evaluation would change significantly. From the appendix I see that most of the tokens could be in the set $SDR_x$.

2. What if the set of tokens don't overlap between the RCNN and the black-box to be verified. That said, I think the assumptions of the framework should be much more explicitly mentioned.

3. The std deviations in the experiments are very high. Can the authors justify this and how it is still okay to use this framework for evaluating feature importance based explanations.

Minor:
1. You have cited the "Anchors" paper twice?
2. Page 3 - typo - "....explainer should provide different explanations for the trained model on real data than when the data..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update -

I have read the authors response.
If the pruned dataset is created using an RCNN, then it is not clear if the RCNN is used to just explain itself or all other methods as well. Like I said, if we just train the model on a slightly different distribution of labels, or half the data randomly sampled irrespective of labels, the explanations will change because the pruned dataset i.e. the ground truth may significantly change. I am still not convinced how this makes for a good verification framework to asses other explainers.

It is also unclear how generalizable this verification process is to other domains. I will therefore not be updating my score.

The evidence to be evaluated is:We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

This intermediate hard selection facilitates the existence of tokens that do not have any contribution to the final prediction. While Lei et al. (2016) aimed for \(\mathcal{S}_{x}\) to be the sufficient rationals for each prediction, the model might have learned an internal (emergent) communication protocol (Foerster et al., 2016) that encodes information from the non-selected via the selected tokens, which we call a _handshake_.

Our goal is to gather a dataset \(\mathcal{D}\) such that for all \(x\in\mathcal{D}\), the set of non-selected tokens, which we denote \(\mathcal{N}_{x}=x\setminus\mathcal{S}_{x}\), has zero contribution to the RCNN's prediction on \(x\).

On our example in Figure 2, on the instance "The movie was very good.", the model selects "very" and predicts a score of \(1\). However, if we input the instance consisting of just "very", the model will not select anything2 and would return a score of \(0.5\).

From now on, we refer to non-selected tokens as irrelevant or zero-contribution interchangeably.

However, we are yet not sure that all the non-selected tokens are relevant to the prediction. In fact, it is possible that some tokens (such as "the" or "a") are actually noise, but have been selected only to ensure that the selection is a contiguous sequence (as we mentioned, the RCNN was penalized during training for selecting disconnected tokens). Since we do not want to penalize explainers for not differentiating between noise and zero-contribution features, we further prune the dataset such that there exists at least one selected token which is, without any doubt, _clearly relevant_ for the prediction.

We highlight that simply because a selected token alone did not make a change in prediction higher than a threshold does not mean that this token is not relevant, as it may be essential in combination with other tokens.

First, we note that our procedure does not provide an explainer in itself, since we do not give an actual ranking, nor any contribution weights, and it is possible for some of the tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{K}_{x}\) to be even more important than tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\). However, we guarantee the following two properties:

Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones.

For each dataset, we know that for each instance \(x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}\), the set of non-selected tokens \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) has zero contribution to the prediction of the model.

In Table 1, we see that, on metric (A), all explainers are prone to stating that the most relevant feature is a token with zero contribution, as much as \(14.79\%\) of the time for LIME and \(12.95\%\) of the time for L2X in the aroma aspect. We consider this the most dramatic form of failure. Metric (B) shows that both explainers can rank at least one zero-contribution token higher than a clearly relevant feature, i.e., there is at least one mistake in the predicted ranking.

Firstly, we notice that both explainers are prone to attributing importance to non-selected tokens, with LIME and SHAP even ranking the tokens "mouthfel" and "lacing" belonging to \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) as first two (most important). Further, "gorgeous", the only relevant word used by the model, did not even make it in top 13 tokens for L2X.

We presented the error rates on different metrics for three popular explanatory methods to raise awareness of the types of failures that these explainers can produce, such as incorrectly predicting even the most relevant token.

We note that if there is a handshake in the instance \(x\), i.e., at least one non-selected token \(x_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\) is actually influencing the final prediction via an internal encoding of its information into the selected tokens, then the model should have a different prediction when \(x_{k}\) is eliminated from the instance, i.e., \(\text{RCNN}(x)\neq\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})\). Equivalently, if \(\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})=\text{RCNN}(x)\), then \(x_{k}\) could not have been part of a handshake. Thus, if the RCNN gives the same prediction when eliminating _all_ the non-selected tokens, it means that there was no handshake for the instance \(x\), and hence the tokens in \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) have indeed zero contribution. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{APPEARANCE} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{AROMA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{PALATE} \\ \hline Model & \%\_first & \%\_mismk & \(avg\_misrk\) & \%\_first & \%\_misrk & \%\_first & \%\_mismk & \%\_mismk \\ \hline LIME & **4.24** & 24.39 & 7.02 (24.12) & 14.79 & 32.08 & 12.74 (33.54) & 2.92 & 13.93 & **3.48** (17.38) \\ SHAP & 4.74 & **16.81** & **1.16** (7.75) & **4.24** & **13.53** & **0.83** (7.10) & **2.65** & **9.20** & 9.25 (9.70) \\ L2X & 6.58 & 28.85 & 3.54 (12.66) & 12.95 & 31.61 & 4.41 (16.25) & 12.77 & 29.83 & 3.70 (13.05) \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Error rates of the explainers. The lower the values, the better the explainer. Best results in bold. In parenthesis are the standard deviations when averages are reported.

Input: Table 1: Error rates of the explainers. The lower the values, the better the explainer. Best results in bold. In parenthesis are the standard deviations when averages are reported.

Input: Figure 2: Example of handshake.

Input: Figure 1: Examples on which the two perspectives give different instance-wise explanations.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find this claim to be well-stated. The evidence, particularly Table 1, directly supports the claim by showing that explainers do predict zero-contribution tokens as most relevant in a significant percentage of cases - ranging from 2.65% to 14.79% across different aspects and methods. The example in Figure 5 also demonstrates this, where LIME and SHAP rank tokens like "mouthfel" and "lacing" (which are in the zero-contribution set) as most important. The claim carefully uses the phrase "in certain cases" rather than making sweeping generalizations, accurately reflecting the evidence.

<score>1</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

For example, our findings show that, in certain cases, the explainers predict the most relevant token to be among the tokens with zero contribution.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

-------------------- AFTER
The original rating of "Weak Reject" still holds as the authors failed to provide proper justification for the raise concerns and support their claims through additional experiments.

"We do not introduce an explanation generation framework, as explainers do. " - The proposed evaluation requires the explainer of the NLP model to agree with the RCNN in-terms of relevant or irrelevant words, to be considered a good explainer. The RCNN model which is defining the relevant and irrelevant tokens for a prediction task is in fact stating that we can explain the decision of an NLP model in terms of relevant and irrelevant tokens. Hence, the proposed RCNN can also be considered as an explainer. The evaluation task is demonstrating if the other explainers are providing explanations consistent with this new explainer based on RCNN.

"The RCNN is not meant to explain any other models except itself." - Unclear

"Regarding the request for more experiments:" - The authors don't provide enough justification to "why they didn't perform more experiments?"

" Hence, with our current instantiations, any domain-agnostic explainer can be evaluated" - The experiment to validate this claim are missing.

"The novelty of our paper consists in the fact that, to our knowledge, it is the first to (1) shed light over a fundamental difference" - This is not a technical novelty. This is an exploratory analysis based observation

"and (2) propose a methodology for evaluating explainers that ...and without human intervention (unlike evaluation type 4)." -  In Section 5 Qualitative Analysis, the authors are also doing human evaluation like other methods in evaluation type-4 of their related works. Also, doing human evaluation is a strong way to justify an explainer. Though expensive, whenever possible it should be done and is in no way a limitation of current evaluation metrics.

Your model needs labelled data for training RCNN. This adds a constraint on the usability and scalability of your proposed evaluation method. Since RCNN is also black-box, one will required another explainer to explain the RCNN.

In the worst-case scenario, if RCNN is trained with data such that it considers all relevant words as irrelevant, the evaluation made by RCNN will be incorrect. Hence, " Success depends on the ability of the RCNN to extract correct subsets of tokens."

-------------------  BEFORE
The paper proposed a verification framework to evaluate the performance of different explanatory methods in interpreting a given target model. Specifically, the authors evaluated three explanatory methods namely, LIME, SHAP and L2X for a target model trained to perform sentiment analysis on text data. Authors assume for each input text, there is a subset of tokens that are most relevant and that are completely irrelevant to the final prediction task.  The proposed framework uses a recurrent convolutional neural network (RCNN) to find these subsets. The performance of an explainer is evaluated in terms of overlap between the RCNN most relevant tokens and the most relevant tokens provided by the explainer as an explanation.

Major
•	The paper lack technical novelty.
•	The proposed architecture uses a RCNN to find the most relevant subset of tokens. Firstly, RCNN is also a black box that provides no intuition behind its selection decision. Secondly, in the absence of the ground truth labels for true relevance and irrelevance of a token in input sentence, this explainer method can also suffer from “assuming a reasonable behavior” assumption. The method assumes that the RCNN is performing reasonably in identifying relevant subsets.
•	The success of the method depends on the ability of the RCNN to extract correct subsets of tokens. The data used for training the RCNN, might have some underlying bias. In that case, the evaluation is not accurate.
•	In related work, for “Interpretable target models” the authors mentioned LIME as an example of explainer functions that explains target models that are “very simple models may not be representative for the large and intricate neural networks used in practice”. LIME locally explains the decision of a complex function for a given data point using simpler models like linear regression. But LIME itself can be used for generating explanation for prediction of complex neural network like Inception Net.
•	The example used to explain the difference between feature additive and feature selection-based explainer methods, is confusing. Its not clear how in health diagnostics, one will prefer feature-selection perspective. Although the most relevant features used for the instance are important to understand the decision, but in clinical settings sometimes low rank features can also be useful to understand the target model.
•	For text, the relevant features are the individual tokens of the input sentence. Similarly, for images relevance can be important regions of the image. The authors did not have any experiments on images or tabular data.
•	In the experiment section, the comparison is made with only 3 explainer models and for just one task. The experiments are inadequate.
•	In Figure 4, the colormap is not readable.

The evidence to be evaluated is:We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

This intermediate hard selection facilitates the existence of tokens that do not have any contribution to the final prediction. While Lei et al. (2016) aimed for \(\mathcal{S}_{x}\) to be the sufficient rationals for each prediction, the model might have learned an internal (emergent) communication protocol (Foerster et al., 2016) that encodes information from the non-selected via the selected tokens, which we call a _handshake_.

Our goal is to gather a dataset \(\mathcal{D}\) such that for all \(x\in\mathcal{D}\), the set of non-selected tokens, which we denote \(\mathcal{N}_{x}=x\setminus\mathcal{S}_{x}\), has zero contribution to the RCNN's prediction on \(x\).

On our example in Figure 2, on the instance "The movie was very good.", the model selects "very" and predicts a score of \(1\). However, if we input the instance consisting of just "very", the model will not select anything2 and would return a score of \(0.5\).

From now on, we refer to non-selected tokens as irrelevant or zero-contribution interchangeably.

However, we are yet not sure that all the non-selected tokens are relevant to the prediction. In fact, it is possible that some tokens (such as "the" or "a") are actually noise, but have been selected only to ensure that the selection is a contiguous sequence (as we mentioned, the RCNN was penalized during training for selecting disconnected tokens). Since we do not want to penalize explainers for not differentiating between noise and zero-contribution features, we further prune the dataset such that there exists at least one selected token which is, without any doubt, _clearly relevant_ for the prediction.

We highlight that simply because a selected token alone did not make a change in prediction higher than a threshold does not mean that this token is not relevant, as it may be essential in combination with other tokens.

First, we note that our procedure does not provide an explainer in itself, since we do not give an actual ranking, nor any contribution weights, and it is possible for some of the tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{K}_{x}\) to be even more important than tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\). However, we guarantee the following two properties:

Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones.

For each dataset, we know that for each instance \(x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}\), the set of non-selected tokens \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) has zero contribution to the prediction of the model.

In Table 1, we see that, on metric (A), all explainers are prone to stating that the most relevant feature is a token with zero contribution, as much as \(14.79\%\) of the time for LIME and \(12.95\%\) of the time for L2X in the aroma aspect. We consider this the most dramatic form of failure. Metric (B) shows that both explainers can rank at least one zero-contribution token higher than a clearly relevant feature, i.e., there is at least one mistake in the predicted ranking.

Firstly, we notice that both explainers are prone to attributing importance to non-selected tokens, with LIME and SHAP even ranking the tokens "mouthfel" and "lacing" belonging to \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) as first two (most important). Further, "gorgeous", the only relevant word used by the model, did not even make it in top 13 tokens for L2X.

We presented the error rates on different metrics for three popular explanatory methods to raise awareness of the types of failures that these explainers can produce, such as incorrectly predicting even the most relevant token.

We note that if there is a handshake in the instance \(x\), i.e., at least one non-selected token \(x_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\) is actually influencing the final prediction via an internal encoding of its information into the selected tokens, then the model should have a different prediction when \(x_{k}\) is eliminated from the instance, i.e., \(\text{RCNN}(x)\neq\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})\). Equivalently, if \(\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})=\text{RCNN}(x)\), then \(x_{k}\) could not have been part of a handshake. Thus, if the RCNN gives the same prediction when eliminating _all_ the non-selected tokens, it means that there was no handshake for the instance \(x\), and hence the tokens in \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) have indeed zero contribution. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{APPEARANCE} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{AROMA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{PALATE} \\ \hline Model & \%\_first & \%\_mismk & \(avg\_misrk\) & \%\_first & \%\_misrk & \%\_first & \%\_mismk & \%\_mismk \\ \hline LIME & **4.24** & 24.39 & 7.02 (24.12) & 14.79 & 32.08 & 12.74 (33.54) & 2.92 & 13.93 & **3.48** (17.38) \\ SHAP & 4.74 & **16.81** & **1.16** (7.75) & **4.24** & **13.53** & **0.83** (7.10) & **2.65** & **9.20** & 9.25 (9.70) \\ L2X & 6.58 & 28.85 & 3.54 (12.66) & 12.95 & 31.61 & 4.41 (16.25) & 12.77 & 29.83 & 3.70 (13.05) \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Error rates of the explainers. The lower the values, the better the explainer. Best results in bold. In parenthesis are the standard deviations when averages are reported.

Input: Table 1: Error rates of the explainers. The lower the values, the better the explainer. Best results in bold. In parenthesis are the standard deviations when averages are reported.

Input: Figure 2: Example of handshake.

Input: Figure 1: Examples on which the two perspectives give different instance-wise explanations.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find this claim is well-supported by the data presented. Table 1 shows that explainers do predict zero-contribution tokens as most relevant with concerning frequency - LIME shows 14.79% for aroma, 4.24% for appearance, and 2.92% for palate aspects. The authors demonstrate this through quantitative metrics and qualitative examples (like Figure 5 where LIME and SHAP rank non-selected tokens as most important). The claim appropriately uses measured language ("in certain cases") and is directly backed by the experimental results without exaggeration.

<score>1</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

For example, our findings show that, in certain cases, the explainers predict the most relevant token to be among the tokens with zero contribution.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Overview/Contribution:
====================
The authors present a explanation generation framework that help validate post-hoc explanations when the explanations are generated based on feature selection. They claim to demonstrate their method by showing failure modes of exiting explanation generation methods.

Overall, the paper is not ready to be accepted to the conference and I describe my rational with the following strengths and weaknesses.

Strength:
========
+ Explanations make models more transparent and easy to understand for end users of the decision made by complex models such as deep neural networks [1]. In that respect, having a verification mechanism for post-hoc explanations is interesting and useful.
+ The paper is easy to read and follow.
Weakness:
===========
- evaluating explanations generated for an opaque model with another opaque model (RCNN) is cyclical.
- Just like many literature in this nascent space, interpretation (which is measuring the contribution of features or subsets of features towards predicted output) is confused as explanation. Human level explanations don’t necessarily depend on the direct interaction or contribution of model derived features. Rather they describe ‘why’ the model come up with the decision produced.
- Explanation generation is gaining traction in the deep learning community especially for critical applications such as healthcare and security. However, the authors claim that post-hoc explanations currently are only evaluated for only simple non-neural model. That is misleading given the recent attention toward generating explanations for various deep learning models.
- As a generalized pos-hoc explanation generators verification framework, the experiments are seriously lacking and are not well designed to illicit broad applicability.

1) Bekele, E., Lawson, W. E., Horne, Z., & Khemlani, S. (2018). Implementing a Robust Explanatory Bias in a Person Re-identification Network. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (pp. 2165-2172).

The evidence to be evaluated is:We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

This intermediate hard selection facilitates the existence of tokens that do not have any contribution to the final prediction. While Lei et al. (2016) aimed for \(\mathcal{S}_{x}\) to be the sufficient rationals for each prediction, the model might have learned an internal (emergent) communication protocol (Foerster et al., 2016) that encodes information from the non-selected via the selected tokens, which we call a _handshake_.

Our goal is to gather a dataset \(\mathcal{D}\) such that for all \(x\in\mathcal{D}\), the set of non-selected tokens, which we denote \(\mathcal{N}_{x}=x\setminus\mathcal{S}_{x}\), has zero contribution to the RCNN's prediction on \(x\).

On our example in Figure 2, on the instance "The movie was very good.", the model selects "very" and predicts a score of \(1\). However, if we input the instance consisting of just "very", the model will not select anything2 and would return a score of \(0.5\).

From now on, we refer to non-selected tokens as irrelevant or zero-contribution interchangeably.

However, we are yet not sure that all the non-selected tokens are relevant to the prediction. In fact, it is possible that some tokens (such as "the" or "a") are actually noise, but have been selected only to ensure that the selection is a contiguous sequence (as we mentioned, the RCNN was penalized during training for selecting disconnected tokens). Since we do not want to penalize explainers for not differentiating between noise and zero-contribution features, we further prune the dataset such that there exists at least one selected token which is, without any doubt, _clearly relevant_ for the prediction.

We highlight that simply because a selected token alone did not make a change in prediction higher than a threshold does not mean that this token is not relevant, as it may be essential in combination with other tokens.

First, we note that our procedure does not provide an explainer in itself, since we do not give an actual ranking, nor any contribution weights, and it is possible for some of the tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{K}_{x}\) to be even more important than tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\). However, we guarantee the following two properties:

Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones.

For each dataset, we know that for each instance \(x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}\), the set of non-selected tokens \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) has zero contribution to the prediction of the model.

In Table 1, we see that, on metric (A), all explainers are prone to stating that the most relevant feature is a token with zero contribution, as much as \(14.79\%\) of the time for LIME and \(12.95\%\) of the time for L2X in the aroma aspect. We consider this the most dramatic form of failure. Metric (B) shows that both explainers can rank at least one zero-contribution token higher than a clearly relevant feature, i.e., there is at least one mistake in the predicted ranking.

Firstly, we notice that both explainers are prone to attributing importance to non-selected tokens, with LIME and SHAP even ranking the tokens "mouthfel" and "lacing" belonging to \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) as first two (most important). Further, "gorgeous", the only relevant word used by the model, did not even make it in top 13 tokens for L2X.

We presented the error rates on different metrics for three popular explanatory methods to raise awareness of the types of failures that these explainers can produce, such as incorrectly predicting even the most relevant token.

We note that if there is a handshake in the instance \(x\), i.e., at least one non-selected token \(x_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\) is actually influencing the final prediction via an internal encoding of its information into the selected tokens, then the model should have a different prediction when \(x_{k}\) is eliminated from the instance, i.e., \(\text{RCNN}(x)\neq\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})\). Equivalently, if \(\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})=\text{RCNN}(x)\), then \(x_{k}\) could not have been part of a handshake. Thus, if the RCNN gives the same prediction when eliminating _all_ the non-selected tokens, it means that there was no handshake for the instance \(x\), and hence the tokens in \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) have indeed zero contribution. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{APPEARANCE} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{AROMA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{PALATE} \\ \hline Model & \%\_first & \%\_mismk & \(avg\_misrk\) & \%\_first & \%\_misrk & \%\_first & \%\_mismk & \%\_mismk \\ \hline LIME & **4.24** & 24.39 & 7.02 (24.12) & 14.79 & 32.08 & 12.74 (33.54) & 2.92 & 13.93 & **3.48** (17.38) \\ SHAP & 4.74 & **16.81** & **1.16** (7.75) & **4.24** & **13.53** & **0.83** (7.10) & **2.65** & **9.20** & 9.25 (9.70) \\ L2X & 6.58 & 28.85 & 3.54 (12.66) & 12.95 & 31.61 & 4.41 (16.25) & 12.77 & 29.83 & 3.70 (13.05) \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Error rates of the explainers. The lower the values, the better the explainer. Best results in bold. In parenthesis are the standard deviations when averages are reported.

Input: Table 1: Error rates of the explainers. The lower the values, the better the explainer. Best results in bold. In parenthesis are the standard deviations when averages are reported.

Input: Figure 2: Example of handshake.

Input: Figure 1: Examples on which the two perspectives give different instance-wise explanations.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find that it is a well-stated claim that accurately reflects the findings without exaggeration. The evidence clearly shows that explainers do predict zero-contribution tokens as most relevant in some cases:

- Table 1 demonstrates that LIME predicts zero-contribution tokens as most relevant up to 14.79% of the time (for aroma aspect)
- L2X shows similar issues with up to 12.95% error rate
- Figure 5 provides a specific example where LIME and SHAP ranked non-selected tokens "mouthfel" and "lacing" as the most important ones

The claim carefully uses qualifying language ("in certain cases") and directly ties to quantifiable evidence, avoiding overstatement.

<score>1</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

We will release our test, which can be used off-the-shelf, and encourage the community to use it for testing future work on explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

The evidence to be evaluated is:_Perspective 2 (Feature-selection)_: For a model \(f\) and an instance \(x\), the explanation of \(f(x)\) consists of a sufficient (ideally small) subset \(S(x)\) of (potentially ranked) features that alone lead to (almost) the same prediction as the original one, i.e., \(f(S(x))\approx f(x)\). Chen et al. (2018); Carter et al. (2018), and Ribeiro et al. (2018) adhere to this perspective. For example, L2X (Chen et al., 2018) learns \(S(x)\) by maximizing the mutual information between \(S(x)\) and the prediction. However, it assumes that the number of important features per instance, i.e., \(|S(x)|\), is known, which is usually not the case in practice. A downside of this perspective is that it may not always be true that the model relied only on a (small) subset of features, as opposed to using all the features. However, this can be the case for certain tasks, such as sentiment analysis.

In the rest of the paper, we propose a verification framework for the _feature-selection_ perspective of instance-wise explanations.

We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

We evaluate explainers that provide a ranking over the features. We denote by \(r_{1}(x),r_{2}(x),\ldots,r_{n}(x)\) the ranking (in decreasing order of importance) given by an explainer on the \(n=|x|\) features in the instance \(x\). Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

* **Percentage of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{\%}_{\text{mismrk}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x \in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{\exists i<j\text{ such that }r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\text{ and }r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S} \mathcal{R}_{x}\}}\,.\] (5)

* **Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{avg\_mismrk}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x\in \mathcal{D}_{a}}\sum\limits_{i<\text{last},\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}} \mathbb{1}_{\{r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (6) where \(\text{last\_si}=\text{argmax}_{j}\{r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\}\) is the lowest rank of the clearly relevant tokens. Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones. Metric (B) shows the percentage of instances for which there is at least an error in the explanation. Finally, metric (C) quantifies the number of zero-contribution features that were ranked higher than any clearly relevant feature.

Secondly, we introduced an off-the-shelf evaluation test for post-hoc explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

While instantiated on a natural language processing task, our methodology is generic and can be adapted to other tasks and other areas.

Input: Figure 4: Explainers’ rankings (with top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the palate aspect in our evaluation dataset.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
I'll evaluate the claim about releasing an "off-the-shelf" test for explanatory methods:

Summary: The evidence shows that the authors have developed a structured evaluation framework with specific metrics (equations 4-6) for assessing feature-selection explanations. The framework appears well-defined with clear metrics for measuring explainer performance. The figures demonstrate practical application on NLP tasks, showing comparisons between different explainers (LIME, SHAP, L2X). However, while the methodology seems sound, calling it fully "off-the-shelf" may be slightly optimistic since it required careful dataset pruning and task-specific adaptations.

Justification:
- The framework is well-documented with clear mathematical formulations
- The authors acknowledge limitations and need for task-specific adaptation ("can be adapted to other tasks")
- Some setup work is required (dataset pruning, defining relevant/irrelevant features) before applying the test
- Evidence shows implementation for NLP but generalization to other domains isn't fully demonstrated

<score>2</score>

The claim is slightly overstated but generally well-supported by the evidence. A score of 2 reflects that while the test framework exists and appears useful, describing it as fully "off-the-shelf" may oversimplify the implementation requirements.


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

We will release our test, which can be used off-the-shelf, and encourage the community to use it for testing future work on explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Summary -

The paper proposes a verification method for instance wise feature explanations. The verification framework uses an RCNN to identify two types of tokens a) the tokens that are not predictive of outcome b) the subset of clearly relevant tokens for prediction. The data used for RCNN is a pruned version of the data used to train the  black-box. The pruning eliminates data points to ensure that the tokens not selected by RCNN have no contribution to the outcome and that the model does not exhibit suffer from learning "handshakes". A handshake is defined as the set of tokens that may be spuriously missed because their information is encoded in another relevant token. This proof to identify such data points is shown and the RNN is therefore expected to be able to reliably identify 3 kinds of tokens a) Those that have zero contribution to the outcome. b) Those that definitely have some contribution to the outcome and c) those that could be relevant or noisy. Three instance-wise feature selection methods are compared. Results are provided on 3 metrics. a) % instances for which the most important tokes provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens, b) % of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a relevant token, and c) Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any obviously relevant tokens.

Clarifications and concerns:
1. For the dataset considered here, I would like to see the distribution of the irrelevant, clearly relevant and unsure if they are relevant tokens as detected by the RCNN. How does this change if I further prune the dataset after ensuring that handshake and other issues have been eliminated. The main concern I have is the idea of verifying other explanations using a neural network itself. I can train the RCNN neural network with half the data (and satisfy the properties the authors mention) and my evaluation would change significantly. From the appendix I see that most of the tokens could be in the set $SDR_x$.

2. What if the set of tokens don't overlap between the RCNN and the black-box to be verified. That said, I think the assumptions of the framework should be much more explicitly mentioned.

3. The std deviations in the experiments are very high. Can the authors justify this and how it is still okay to use this framework for evaluating feature importance based explanations.

Minor:
1. You have cited the "Anchors" paper twice?
2. Page 3 - typo - "....explainer should provide different explanations for the trained model on real data than when the data..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update -

I have read the authors response.
If the pruned dataset is created using an RCNN, then it is not clear if the RCNN is used to just explain itself or all other methods as well. Like I said, if we just train the model on a slightly different distribution of labels, or half the data randomly sampled irrespective of labels, the explanations will change because the pruned dataset i.e. the ground truth may significantly change. I am still not convinced how this makes for a good verification framework to asses other explainers.

It is also unclear how generalizable this verification process is to other domains. I will therefore not be updating my score.

The evidence to be evaluated is:_Perspective 2 (Feature-selection)_: For a model \(f\) and an instance \(x\), the explanation of \(f(x)\) consists of a sufficient (ideally small) subset \(S(x)\) of (potentially ranked) features that alone lead to (almost) the same prediction as the original one, i.e., \(f(S(x))\approx f(x)\). Chen et al. (2018); Carter et al. (2018), and Ribeiro et al. (2018) adhere to this perspective. For example, L2X (Chen et al., 2018) learns \(S(x)\) by maximizing the mutual information between \(S(x)\) and the prediction. However, it assumes that the number of important features per instance, i.e., \(|S(x)|\), is known, which is usually not the case in practice. A downside of this perspective is that it may not always be true that the model relied only on a (small) subset of features, as opposed to using all the features. However, this can be the case for certain tasks, such as sentiment analysis.

In the rest of the paper, we propose a verification framework for the _feature-selection_ perspective of instance-wise explanations.

We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

We evaluate explainers that provide a ranking over the features. We denote by \(r_{1}(x),r_{2}(x),\ldots,r_{n}(x)\) the ranking (in decreasing order of importance) given by an explainer on the \(n=|x|\) features in the instance \(x\). Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

* **Percentage of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{\%}_{\text{mismrk}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x \in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{\exists i<j\text{ such that }r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\text{ and }r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S} \mathcal{R}_{x}\}}\,.\] (5)

* **Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{avg\_mismrk}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x\in \mathcal{D}_{a}}\sum\limits_{i<\text{last},\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}} \mathbb{1}_{\{r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (6) where \(\text{last\_si}=\text{argmax}_{j}\{r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\}\) is the lowest rank of the clearly relevant tokens. Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones. Metric (B) shows the percentage of instances for which there is at least an error in the explanation. Finally, metric (C) quantifies the number of zero-contribution features that were ranked higher than any clearly relevant feature.

Secondly, we introduced an off-the-shelf evaluation test for post-hoc explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

While instantiated on a natural language processing task, our methodology is generic and can be adapted to other tasks and other areas.

Input: Figure 4: Explainers’ rankings (with top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the palate aspect in our evaluation dataset.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Based on my analysis, the claim about releasing an "off-the-shelf" test for evaluating explanatory methods appears overstated. While the paper presents a verification framework, several key concerns are raised in the review:

1. The framework relies heavily on an RCNN that could produce different results with different training data
2. There are questions about generalizability to other domains
3. The high standard deviations in experiments raise reliability concerns
4. The methodology is primarily demonstrated on natural language processing tasks, despite claims of being "generic"

While the paper does present a testing framework, characterizing it as ready for "off-the-shelf" use appears to overstate its current capabilities and reliability given these limitations.

<score>4</score>

Justification:
- The reviewer points out significant concerns about reproducibility and reliability
- The framework's dependence on neural network training makes it less "off-the-shelf" than claimed
- The high experimental variance suggests the framework may not be ready for general use
- While the paper claims the methodology is "generic," it's only demonstrated in one domain
- The claim would be better stated with appropriate caveats about the current limitations and constraints


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

We will release our test, which can be used off-the-shelf, and encourage the community to use it for testing future work on explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

-------------------- AFTER
The original rating of "Weak Reject" still holds as the authors failed to provide proper justification for the raise concerns and support their claims through additional experiments.

"We do not introduce an explanation generation framework, as explainers do. " - The proposed evaluation requires the explainer of the NLP model to agree with the RCNN in-terms of relevant or irrelevant words, to be considered a good explainer. The RCNN model which is defining the relevant and irrelevant tokens for a prediction task is in fact stating that we can explain the decision of an NLP model in terms of relevant and irrelevant tokens. Hence, the proposed RCNN can also be considered as an explainer. The evaluation task is demonstrating if the other explainers are providing explanations consistent with this new explainer based on RCNN.

"The RCNN is not meant to explain any other models except itself." - Unclear

"Regarding the request for more experiments:" - The authors don't provide enough justification to "why they didn't perform more experiments?"

" Hence, with our current instantiations, any domain-agnostic explainer can be evaluated" - The experiment to validate this claim are missing.

"The novelty of our paper consists in the fact that, to our knowledge, it is the first to (1) shed light over a fundamental difference" - This is not a technical novelty. This is an exploratory analysis based observation

"and (2) propose a methodology for evaluating explainers that ...and without human intervention (unlike evaluation type 4)." -  In Section 5 Qualitative Analysis, the authors are also doing human evaluation like other methods in evaluation type-4 of their related works. Also, doing human evaluation is a strong way to justify an explainer. Though expensive, whenever possible it should be done and is in no way a limitation of current evaluation metrics.

Your model needs labelled data for training RCNN. This adds a constraint on the usability and scalability of your proposed evaluation method. Since RCNN is also black-box, one will required another explainer to explain the RCNN.

In the worst-case scenario, if RCNN is trained with data such that it considers all relevant words as irrelevant, the evaluation made by RCNN will be incorrect. Hence, " Success depends on the ability of the RCNN to extract correct subsets of tokens."

-------------------  BEFORE
The paper proposed a verification framework to evaluate the performance of different explanatory methods in interpreting a given target model. Specifically, the authors evaluated three explanatory methods namely, LIME, SHAP and L2X for a target model trained to perform sentiment analysis on text data. Authors assume for each input text, there is a subset of tokens that are most relevant and that are completely irrelevant to the final prediction task.  The proposed framework uses a recurrent convolutional neural network (RCNN) to find these subsets. The performance of an explainer is evaluated in terms of overlap between the RCNN most relevant tokens and the most relevant tokens provided by the explainer as an explanation.

Major
•	The paper lack technical novelty.
•	The proposed architecture uses a RCNN to find the most relevant subset of tokens. Firstly, RCNN is also a black box that provides no intuition behind its selection decision. Secondly, in the absence of the ground truth labels for true relevance and irrelevance of a token in input sentence, this explainer method can also suffer from “assuming a reasonable behavior” assumption. The method assumes that the RCNN is performing reasonably in identifying relevant subsets.
•	The success of the method depends on the ability of the RCNN to extract correct subsets of tokens. The data used for training the RCNN, might have some underlying bias. In that case, the evaluation is not accurate.
•	In related work, for “Interpretable target models” the authors mentioned LIME as an example of explainer functions that explains target models that are “very simple models may not be representative for the large and intricate neural networks used in practice”. LIME locally explains the decision of a complex function for a given data point using simpler models like linear regression. But LIME itself can be used for generating explanation for prediction of complex neural network like Inception Net.
•	The example used to explain the difference between feature additive and feature selection-based explainer methods, is confusing. Its not clear how in health diagnostics, one will prefer feature-selection perspective. Although the most relevant features used for the instance are important to understand the decision, but in clinical settings sometimes low rank features can also be useful to understand the target model.
•	For text, the relevant features are the individual tokens of the input sentence. Similarly, for images relevance can be important regions of the image. The authors did not have any experiments on images or tabular data.
•	In the experiment section, the comparison is made with only 3 explainer models and for just one task. The experiments are inadequate.
•	In Figure 4, the colormap is not readable.

The evidence to be evaluated is:_Perspective 2 (Feature-selection)_: For a model \(f\) and an instance \(x\), the explanation of \(f(x)\) consists of a sufficient (ideally small) subset \(S(x)\) of (potentially ranked) features that alone lead to (almost) the same prediction as the original one, i.e., \(f(S(x))\approx f(x)\). Chen et al. (2018); Carter et al. (2018), and Ribeiro et al. (2018) adhere to this perspective. For example, L2X (Chen et al., 2018) learns \(S(x)\) by maximizing the mutual information between \(S(x)\) and the prediction. However, it assumes that the number of important features per instance, i.e., \(|S(x)|\), is known, which is usually not the case in practice. A downside of this perspective is that it may not always be true that the model relied only on a (small) subset of features, as opposed to using all the features. However, this can be the case for certain tasks, such as sentiment analysis.

In the rest of the paper, we propose a verification framework for the _feature-selection_ perspective of instance-wise explanations.

We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

We evaluate explainers that provide a ranking over the features. We denote by \(r_{1}(x),r_{2}(x),\ldots,r_{n}(x)\) the ranking (in decreasing order of importance) given by an explainer on the \(n=|x|\) features in the instance \(x\). Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

* **Percentage of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{\%}_{\text{mismrk}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x \in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{\exists i<j\text{ such that }r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\text{ and }r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S} \mathcal{R}_{x}\}}\,.\] (5)

* **Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{avg\_mismrk}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x\in \mathcal{D}_{a}}\sum\limits_{i<\text{last},\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}} \mathbb{1}_{\{r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (6) where \(\text{last\_si}=\text{argmax}_{j}\{r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\}\) is the lowest rank of the clearly relevant tokens. Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones. Metric (B) shows the percentage of instances for which there is at least an error in the explanation. Finally, metric (C) quantifies the number of zero-contribution features that were ranked higher than any clearly relevant feature.

Secondly, we introduced an off-the-shelf evaluation test for post-hoc explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

While instantiated on a natural language processing task, our methodology is generic and can be adapted to other tasks and other areas.

Input: Figure 4: Explainers’ rankings (with top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the palate aspect in our evaluation dataset.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Based on the review comments and evidence provided, I'll evaluate the claim about releasing an "off-the-shelf" test for evaluating explanatory methods:

The claim appears overstated for several key reasons:
1. The reviewer points out that the RCNN model itself acts as an explainer, contradicting authors' claims about not introducing an explanation framework
2. The method requires labeled training data, limiting its "off-the-shelf" usability
3. The evaluation's success depends heavily on RCNN's ability to correctly identify relevant tokens
4. The experiments were limited in scope (only 3 explainers, one task type)
5. The method's domain-agnostic claims lack sufficient experimental validation

The evidence shows the framework was only tested on text data with sentiment analysis, despite claims of broader applicability. The figures demonstrate analysis on beer review text data but don't support claims of general applicability across domains.

<score>4</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

We will release our test, which can be used off-the-shelf, and encourage the community to use it for testing future work on explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Overview/Contribution:
====================
The authors present a explanation generation framework that help validate post-hoc explanations when the explanations are generated based on feature selection. They claim to demonstrate their method by showing failure modes of exiting explanation generation methods.

Overall, the paper is not ready to be accepted to the conference and I describe my rational with the following strengths and weaknesses.

Strength:
========
+ Explanations make models more transparent and easy to understand for end users of the decision made by complex models such as deep neural networks [1]. In that respect, having a verification mechanism for post-hoc explanations is interesting and useful.
+ The paper is easy to read and follow.
Weakness:
===========
- evaluating explanations generated for an opaque model with another opaque model (RCNN) is cyclical.
- Just like many literature in this nascent space, interpretation (which is measuring the contribution of features or subsets of features towards predicted output) is confused as explanation. Human level explanations don’t necessarily depend on the direct interaction or contribution of model derived features. Rather they describe ‘why’ the model come up with the decision produced.
- Explanation generation is gaining traction in the deep learning community especially for critical applications such as healthcare and security. However, the authors claim that post-hoc explanations currently are only evaluated for only simple non-neural model. That is misleading given the recent attention toward generating explanations for various deep learning models.
- As a generalized pos-hoc explanation generators verification framework, the experiments are seriously lacking and are not well designed to illicit broad applicability.

1) Bekele, E., Lawson, W. E., Horne, Z., & Khemlani, S. (2018). Implementing a Robust Explanatory Bias in a Person Re-identification Network. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (pp. 2165-2172).

The evidence to be evaluated is:_Perspective 2 (Feature-selection)_: For a model \(f\) and an instance \(x\), the explanation of \(f(x)\) consists of a sufficient (ideally small) subset \(S(x)\) of (potentially ranked) features that alone lead to (almost) the same prediction as the original one, i.e., \(f(S(x))\approx f(x)\). Chen et al. (2018); Carter et al. (2018), and Ribeiro et al. (2018) adhere to this perspective. For example, L2X (Chen et al., 2018) learns \(S(x)\) by maximizing the mutual information between \(S(x)\) and the prediction. However, it assumes that the number of important features per instance, i.e., \(|S(x)|\), is known, which is usually not the case in practice. A downside of this perspective is that it may not always be true that the model relied only on a (small) subset of features, as opposed to using all the features. However, this can be the case for certain tasks, such as sentiment analysis.

In the rest of the paper, we propose a verification framework for the _feature-selection_ perspective of instance-wise explanations.

We further prune the original dataset on which the RCNN had been trained to ensure that, for each datapoint \(x\), there exists a set of tokens that have zero contribution (irrelevant features) and a set of tokens that have a significant contribution (clearly relevant features) to RCNN's prediction on \(x\). We further introduce a set of metrics that measure how explainers fail to rank the irrelevant tokens lower than the clearly revelant ones.

We evaluate explainers that provide a ranking over the features. We denote by \(r_{1}(x),r_{2}(x),\ldots,r_{n}(x)\) the ranking (in decreasing order of importance) given by an explainer on the \(n=|x|\) features in the instance \(x\). Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

* **Percentage of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{\%}_{\text{mismrk}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x \in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{\exists i<j\text{ such that }r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\text{ and }r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S} \mathcal{R}_{x}\}}\,.\] (5)

* **Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{avg\_mismrk}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x\in \mathcal{D}_{a}}\sum\limits_{i<\text{last},\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}} \mathbb{1}_{\{r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (6) where \(\text{last\_si}=\text{argmax}_{j}\{r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\}\) is the lowest rank of the clearly relevant tokens. Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones. Metric (B) shows the percentage of instances for which there is at least an error in the explanation. Finally, metric (C) quantifies the number of zero-contribution features that were ranked higher than any clearly relevant feature.

Secondly, we introduced an off-the-shelf evaluation test for post-hoc explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

While instantiated on a natural language processing task, our methodology is generic and can be adapted to other tasks and other areas.

Input: Figure 4: Explainers’ rankings (with top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the palate aspect in our evaluation dataset.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the evidence and claim, I find that the claim about releasing an "off-the-shelf test" for evaluating explanatory methods is somewhat overstated. While the paper does present a verification framework with specific metrics (equations 4-6) and demonstrates its application on a natural language processing task, there are notable limitations:

1. The reviewer points out that the experiments are "seriously lacking" for broad applicability
2. The framework is primarily demonstrated on text data and RCNN models
3. The reviewer raises valid concerns about evaluating explanations with another opaque model
4. While the methodology is claimed to be "generic," the evidence mainly shows application to NLP tasks

The claim could be more precise by acknowledging these limitations and specifying the current scope of validation.

<score>3</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

We introduce a verification framework for explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Among the feature-based explainers, there are two major types of explanations: (i) feature-additive: provide signed weights for each input feature, proportional to the contributions of the features to the model's prediction (Ribeiro et al., 2016; Lundberg and Lee, 2017; Shrikumar et al., 2017; Arras et al., 2017), and (ii) feature-selective: provide a (potentially ranked) subset of features responsible for the prediction (Chen et al., 2018; Ribeiro et al., 2018; Carter et al., 2018).

In this work, we focus on verifying feature-based explainers, since they represent the majority of current works. While many explainers have been proposed, it is still an open question how to thoroughly validate their faithfulness to the target model.

Another popular evaluation setup is to create synthetic tasks where the set of important features is controlled. For example, L2X (Chen et al., 2018) was evaluated on four synthetic tasks: 2-dim XOR, orange skin, nonlinear additive model, and switch feature.

In this setup, one identifies certain intuitive heuristics that a high-performing target model is assumed to follow. For example, in sentiment analysis, the model is supposed to rely on adjectives and adverbs in agreement with the predicted sentiment.

As mentioned before, current explanatory methods adhere to two major perspectives of explanations: _Perspective 1 (Feature-additivity)_: For a model \(f\) and an instance \(x\), the explanation of the prediction \(f(x)\) consists of a set of contributions \(\{w_{i}^{x}(f)\}_{i}\) for each feature \(i\) of \(x\) such that the sum of the contributions of the features in \(x\) approximates \(f(x)\), i.e., \(\sum_{i}w_{i}^{x}(f)\approx f(x)\). Many explanatory methods adhere to this perspective (Arras et al., 2017; Shrikumar et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2016). For example, LIME (Ribeiro et al., 2016) learns the weights via a linear regression on the neighborhood (explained below) of the instance. Lundberg and Lee (2017) unified this class of methods by showing that the only set of feature-additive contributions that verify three desired constraints (local accuracy, missingness, and consistency--we refer to their paper for details) are given by the Shapley values from game theory: \[w_{i}^{x}(f)=\sum_{x^{\prime}\in x\setminus\{i\}}\frac{|x^{\prime}|![(|x|-|x^{ \prime}|-1)!}{|x|!}[f(x^{\prime}\cup\{i\})-f(x^{\prime})]\,, \tag{1}\] where the sum enumerates over all subsets \(x^{\prime}\) of features in \(x\) that do not include the feature \(i\), and \(|\cdot|\) denotes the number of features of its argument.

_Perspective 2 (Feature-selection)_: For a model \(f\) and an instance \(x\), the explanation of \(f(x)\) consists of a sufficient (ideally small) subset \(S(x)\) of (potentially ranked) features that alone lead to (almost) the same prediction as the original one, i.e., \(f(S(x))\approx f(x)\). Chen et al. (2018); Carter et al. (2018), and Ribeiro et al. (2018) adhere to this perspective. For example, L2X (Chen et al., 2018) learns \(S(x)\) by maximizing the mutual information between \(S(x)\) and the prediction.

Thus, we see that the feature-additive perspective aims to provide an _average explanation_ of the model on a _neighborhood_ of the instance, while the feature-selective perspective aims to tell us the pointwise features used by the model on the instance _in isolation_, such as "nice" for instance \(x_{1}\). An even more pronounced difference between the two perspectives is visible on instance \(x_{2}\), where the ranking of features is now different. The feature-selective explanation ranks "good" and "nice" as the two most important features, while on the instance \(x_{2}\) in isolation, the model relied on the tokens "very" and "good", that the feature-selection perspective would aim to provide. Therefore, we see that, while both perspectives of explanations give insights into the model's behavior, one perspective might be preferred over the other in different real-world use-cases. In the rest of the paper, we propose a verification framework for the _feature-selection_ perspective of instance-wise explanations.

Our goal is to gather a dataset \(\mathcal{D}\) such that for all \(x\in\mathcal{D}\), the set of non-selected tokens, which we denote \(\mathcal{N}_{x}=x\setminus\mathcal{S}_{x}\), has zero contribution to the RCNN's prediction on \(x\). Equivalently, we want to eliminate instances that contain handshakes.

With our pruning above, we ensured that the non-selected tokens have no contribution to the prediction. However, we are yet not sure that all the non-selected tokens are relevant to the prediction. In fact, it is possible that some tokens (such as "the" or "a") are actually noise, but have been selected only to ensure that the selection is a contiguous sequence (as we mentioned, the RCNN was penalized during training for selecting disconnected tokens). Since we do not want to penalize explainers for not differentiating between noise and zero-contribution features, we further prune the dataset such that there exists at least one selected token which is, without any doubt, _clearly relevant_ for the prediction. To ensure that a given selected token \(s\) is clearly relevant, we check that, when removing the token \(s\), the absolute change in prediction with respect to the original prediction is higher than a significant threshold \(\tau\).

Thus, we have further partitioned \(\mathcal{S}_{x}\) into \(\mathcal{S}_{x}=\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\cup\mathcal{S}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{ K}_{x}\), where \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\) are the clearly relevant tokens, and \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{K}_{x}\) are the rest of the selected tokens for which we do not know if they are relevant or noise (SDK stands for "selected don't know").

First, we note that our procedure does not provide an explainer in itself, since we do not give an actual ranking, nor any contribution weights, and it is possible for some of the tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{K}_{x}\) to be even more important than tokens in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\). However, we guarantee the following two properties: **P1: ** All tokens in \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) have to be ranked lower than any token in \(\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\). **P2:** The first most important token has to be in \(\mathcal{S}_{x}\). We evaluate explainers that provide a ranking over the features. We denote by \(r_{1}(x),r_{2}(x),\ldots,r_{n}(x)\) the ranking (in decreasing order of importance) given by an explainer on the \(n=|x|\) features in the instance \(x\). Under our two properties above, we define the following error metrics:* **Percentage of instances for which the most important token provided by the explainer is among the non-selected tokens:** \[\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}_{\text{first}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum \limits_{x\in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{r_{1}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (4) where \(\mathbb{1}\) is the indicator function.

* **Percentage of instances for which at least one non-selected token is ranked higher than a clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{\%}_{\text{mismrk}}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x \in\mathcal{D}_{a}}\mathbb{1}_{\{\exists i<j\text{ such that }r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\text{ and }r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S} \mathcal{R}_{x}\}}\,.\] (5)

* **Average number of non-selected tokens ranked higher than any clearly relevant token:** \[\textasci{1.5}{avg\_mismrk}=\tfrac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{a}|}\sum\limits_{x\in \mathcal{D}_{a}}\sum\limits_{i<\text{last},\text{\textasci{1.5}{\%}}} \mathbb{1}_{\{r_{i}(x)\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\}}\,,\] (6) where \(\text{last\_si}=\text{argmax}_{j}\{r_{j}(x)\in\mathcal{S}\mathcal{R}_{x}\}\) is the lowest rank of the clearly relevant tokens. Metric (A) shows the most dramatic failure: the percentage of times when the explainer tells us that the most relevant token is one of the zero contribution ones. Metric (B) shows the percentage of instances for which there is at least an error in the explanation. Finally, metric (C) quantifies the number of zero-contribution features that were ranked higher than any clearly relevant feature.

In this work, we first shed light on an important distinction between two widely used perspectives of explanations. Secondly, we introduced an off-the-shelf evaluation test for post-hoc explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective. To our knowledge, this is the first automatic verification framework offering guarantees on the behaviour of a non-trivial real-world neural network. We presented the error rates on different metrics for three popular explanatory methods to raise awareness of the types of failures that these explainers can produce, such as incorrectly predicting even the most relevant token.

We also point out that the core algorithm in the majority of the current post-hoc explainers are also domain-agnostic. Therefore, we expect our evaluation to provide a representative view of the fundamental limitations of the explainers.

We note that if there is a handshake in the instance \(x\), i.e., at least one non-selected token \(x_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{x}\) is actually influencing the final prediction via an internal encoding of its information into the selected tokens, then the model should have a different prediction when \(x_{k}\) is eliminated from the instance, i.e., \(\text{RCNN}(x)\neq\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})\). Equivalently, if \(\text{RCNN}(x-x_{k})=\text{RCNN}(x)\), then \(x_{k}\) could not have been part of a handshake. Thus, if the RCNN gives the same prediction when eliminating _all_ the non-selected tokens, it means that there was no handshake for the instance \(x\), and hence the tokens in \(\mathcal{N}_{x}\) have indeed zero contribution.

\[\text{RCNN}(x-\mathcal{N}_{x})=\text{RCNN}(x)\implies\text{no handshake in }x\,. \tag{8}\] Since \(x-\mathcal{N}_{x}=\mathcal{S}_{x}\), Equation 8 rewrites as: \[\text{RCNN}(\mathcal{S}_{x})=\text{RCNN}(x)\implies\text{no handshake in }x\,. \tag{9}\]

Input: Figure 3: Partition of the features in our instances.

Input: Figure 6: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the aroma aspect in our evaluation.

Input: Figure 4: Explainers’ rankings (with top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the palate aspect in our evaluation dataset.

Input: Figure 1: Examples on which the two perspectives give different instance-wise explanations.

Input: Figure 5: Explainers’ rankings (with the top 5 features on the right-hand side) on an instance from the appearance aspect in our evaluation.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
I've carefully reviewed the claim "We introduce a verification framework for explanatory methods under the feature-selection perspective" against the provided evidence.

The evidence strongly supports this claim through:
- Clear definition and distinction between feature-additive and feature-selective perspectives
- Detailed methodology for verification including specific error metrics
- Concrete examples showing the framework's application
- Mathematical formalization of the verification approach
- Visual evidence through figures demonstrating the framework's use on real examples

The claim is well-stated (not overstated) because it:
- Accurately describes what is delivered in the evidence
- Uses appropriate scope ("verification framework")
- Is supported by comprehensive technical details
- Demonstrates practical implementation

<score>1</score>