让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

原文摘要

Explanation APIs are often treated as increasing model-extraction risk, but an end-to-end attack comparison cannot show whether an explanation reveals model-specific information or merely supplies a convenient next-query coordinate. We study this distinction for explanation-guided extraction of tabular classifiers. We separate an explanation into an attribution channel, which ranks influential features, and a coordinate channel, which supplies candidate feature values for perturbing those features. We then test whether the useful bin edges are privileged to the service or reproducible from the adversary's own data. Across six datasets and five target families, using attribution rankings to choose which features to perturb provides no systematic extraction advantage. Lime's discretization bin edges can improve fidelity by up to 41 percentage points on continuous features, but those edges are quantiles of the explainer's background data rather than properties of the target model. In controlled comparisons, an attacker-side grid reproduces the useful bin-edge gains without querying an explanation API. We use these findings to derive Cutpurse, which combines a self-computed grid with diverse query generation and boundary search. Against a service that withholds bin edges, Cutpurse improves fidelity by 16.3 percentage points on continuous-feature targets. It also exceeds the undefended published attack by 7.0 percentage points. Thus, withholding default Lime bin edges alone does not prevent effective extraction under the in-domain auxiliary-input, probability-output, and same-family surrogate assumptions studied here. Our results concern default Lime and Shap configurations for tabular classifiers. They do not establish the same conclusion for other explainers, target classes, or data-free attackers.