arXiv:2604.04456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reliable pattern recognition systems should exhibit consistent behavior across similar inputs, and their explanations should remain stable. However, most Explainable AI evaluations remain instance centric and do not explicitly quantify whether attribution patterns are consistent across samples that share the same class or represent small variations of the same input. In this work, we propose a novel metric aimed at assessing the consistency of model explanations, ensuring that models consistently reflect the intended objectives and consistency under label-preserving perturbations. We implement this metric using a pre-trained BERT model on the SST-2 sentiment analysis dataset, with additional robustness tests on RoBERTa, DistilBERT, and IMDB, applying SHAP to compute feature importance for various test samples. The proposed metric quantifies the cosine similarity of SHAP values for inputs with the same label, aiming to detect inconsistent behaviors, such as biased reliance on certain features or failure to maintain consistent reasoning for similar predictions. Through a series of experiments, we evaluate the ability of this metric to identify misaligned predictions and inconsistencies in model explanations. These experiments are compared against standard fidelity metrics to assess whether the new metric can effectively identify when a model's behavior deviates from its intended objectives. The proposed framework provides a deeper understanding of model behavior by enabling more robust verification of rationale stability, which is critical for building trustworthy AI systems. By quantifying whether models rely on consistent attribution patterns for similar inputs, the proposed approach supports more robust evaluation of model behavior in practical pattern recognition pipelines. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/anmspro/ESS-XAI-Stability.

arXiv:2603.22624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Attribution maps for semantic segmentation are almost always judged by visual plausibility. Yet looking convincing does not guarantee that the highlighted pixels actually drive the model's prediction, nor that attribution credit stays within the target region. These questions require a dedicated evaluation protocol. We introduce a reproducible benchmark that tests intervention-based faithfulness, off-target leakage, perturbation robustness, and runtime on Pascal VOC and SBD across three pretrained backbones. To further demonstrate the benchmark, we propose Dual-Evidence Attribution (DEA), a lightweight correction that fuses gradient evidence with region-level intervention signals through agreement-weighted fusion. DEA increases emphasis where both sources agree and retains causal support when gradient responses are unstable. Across all completed runs, DEA consistently improves deletion-based faithfulness over gradient-only baselines and preserves strong robustness, at the cost of additional compute from intervention passes. The benchmark exposes a faithfulness-stability tradeoff among attribution families that is entirely hidden under visual evaluation, providing a foundation for principled method selection in segmentation explainability. Code is available at https://github.com/anmspro/DEA.