Post-hoc Graph Neural Network (GNN) explainers commonly follow a Perturb-Query paradigm, inferring the importance of graph elements based on queried predictions to perturbed inputs. However, such perturbations often introduce substantial distribution shift, undermining the reliability of the queried predictions used to derive explanations. While existing efforts mainly improve perturbed graphs or stabilize model predictions on them, we revisit the perturbation mechanism itself. We show that the widely used Element-wise Masking(EM) suppresses edge-induced messages toward zero, causing deterministic scale contraction that accumulates across message-passing layers, a phenomenon we term Scale Drift. Consequently, prediction changes under EM may conflate information corruption with deviations in propagation scale. As a scale-stable alternative to EM, we introduce Noise Corruption (NC), which perturbs each message through matched-norm random-direction corruption while preserving the expected squared message norm. Building on NC, we propose NICE, a Noise Corruption-based explanation framework, which learns a Stochastic Restoration Boundary (SRB) under NC-induced uncertainty, balancing target-prediction restoration against compactness. Furthermore, Boundary-Integrated Gradient (BIG) converts this boundary into edge attributions by accumulating each edge's contribution to reducing restoration risk along the restoration path. Experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate stronger explanation performance and model faithfulness while confirming that NC substantially reduces the Scale Drift induced by masking.
Perturbation methods explain model decisions by measuring prediction changes under altered inputs, but response magnitude tells us only how much a model reacts, not what that reaction means. The same magnitude can support the final factual-counterfactual difference, oppose it, or arise strongly along the perturbation path yet vanish at the endpoint. We therefore track how the contrast develops as paired inputs are progressively revealed, using the final contrast to interpret the trajectory. We introduce DECAF (Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, And Fragility), which routes aligned, opposed, and endpoint-null responses into evidence E, contradiction C, and fragility F. The decomposition preserves ordinary magnitude exactly, Abs = E + C + F, and is unique under endpoint-relative axioms. Across controlled vision and tabular settings, the three components track independently measured behavior. In a 72-model ImageNet-9 audit, we compare cases with nearly identical response magnitude but different independently measured behaviors. The largest DECAF component agrees with an observed behavior in 96.4% of cases, compared with 35.0% for magnitude alone. Changing only the reveal path increases total response by nearly 80%, yet evidence barely changes while fragility grows by more than 4x. On FunnyBirds and ImageNet-1k, short forward-only DECAF trajectories outperform the tested general-purpose attribution baselines. On a 1B-scale DINOv2 model, a short trajectory matches a strong gradient-based baseline with 4.75x lower wall time and 2.36x lower peak memory.
Recent proliferation of data-optimization integration has led to a range of methods that aim to improve the statistical performance of data-driven optimization decisions. However, while many of these methods are motivated intuitively from a robustness or regularization perspective, their resulting statistical benefits are often unclear and, even if available, are established on a case-by-case basis. We provide a systematic dissection of data-driven optimization formulations using the view of "directionally perturbed" empirical optimization (EO). Specifically, this umbrella of formulations, which we call "EO+", covers many existing data-driven optimization methods, including regularization, distributionally robust optimization, transfer learning, and analogous methods for contextual optimization. On the one hand, we argue that without additional, correctly specified, side information, any EO+ method can result in at most second-order improvements. This provides a negative conclusion, namely ``no free lunch is possible", on the statistical power of EO+. On the other hand, we show that when leveraging side information that is geometrically effective, achieving first-order improvements is possible by choosing hyperparameters that are significantly larger than what is typically suggested in the literature. Moreover, we construct a principled methodology based on excess risk estimation, via either system knowledge or bootstrap resampling, to maximize the first-order gain. We demonstrate how this gain connects to the control-variate principle, a variance reduction technique in the Monte Carlo simulation literature, which helps explain why geometrically effective side information is necessary.