arXiv:2609.16271v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Attribution methods for genomic sequence models are commonly evaluated by how much of a known motif they recover, or by how a prediction degrades as evidence is deleted. Neither score is interpretable without the value it would take by chance, and neither is routinely reported against one. We show that this omission is not a matter of precision but of validity. The uniform chance level for contiguous motif overlap is \(L/(N-L+1)\); across 268 transcription factors in UniBind it ranges from 0.0118 to 0.0427, a 3.6-fold spread determined by motif length and window size alone. For two factors the bootstrap intervals of the chance levels themselves do not overlap, so their raw recovery rates are not comparable quantities. Correcting for this dissolves a published three-way classification of five factors: a factor reported as a resolution failure attains the second-highest corrected value, ahead of one of the two positive controls, and two reported as complete failures fall at or below chance.
We further show that perturbation-based evaluation can fail its own precondition: for one factor a fully masked input still scores above the decision boundary, and the curve is not monotone in the number of masked positions, so the area under it is not a measure of faithfulness. We provide chance levels in closed form, a chance-corrected score, and two screens that run before any attribution is computed.
Abstract: Attribution methods for genomic sequence models are commonly evaluated by how much of a known motif they recover, or by how a prediction degrades as evidence is deleted. Neither score is interpretable without the value it would take by chance, and neither is routinely reported against one. We show that this omission is not a matter of precision but of validity. The uniform chance level for contiguous motif overlap is \(L/(N-L+1)\); across 268 transcription factors in UniBind it ranges from 0.0118 to 0.0427, a 3.6-fold spread determined by motif length and window size alone. For two factors the bootstrap intervals of the chance levels themselves do not overlap, so their raw recovery rates are not comparable quantities. Correcting for this dissolves a published three-way classification of five factors: a factor reported as a resolution failure attains the second-highest corrected value, ahead of one of the two positive controls, and two reported as complete failures fall at or below chance.
We further show that perturbation-based evaluation can fail its own precondition: for one factor a fully masked input still scores above the decision boundary, and the curve is not monotone in the number of masked positions, so the area under it is not a measure of faithfulness. We provide chance levels in closed form, a chance-corrected score, and two screens that run before any attribution is computed.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: