Locally-Minimal Probabilistic Explanations

Formal abductive explanations offer crucial guarantees of rigor and so are of interest in high-stakes uses of machine learning (ML). One drawback of abductive explanations is explanation size, justified by the cognitive limits of human decision-makers. Probabilistic abductive explanations (PAXps) address this limitation, but their theoretical and practical complexity makes their exact computation most often unrealistic. This paper proposes novel efficient algorithms for the computation of locally-minimal PXAps, which offer high-quality approximations of PXAps in practice. The experimental results demonstrate the practical efficiency of the proposed algorithms.

The Pros and Cons of Adversarial Robustness

Robustness is widely regarded as a fundamental problem in the analysis of machine learning (ML) models. Most often robustness equates with deciding the non-existence of adversarial examples, where adversarial examples denote situations where small changes on some inputs cause a change in the prediction. The perceived importance of ML model robustness explains the continued progress observed for most of the last decade. Whereas robustness is often assessed locally, i.e. given some target point in feature space, robustness can also be defined globally, i.e. where any point in feature space can be considered. The importance of ML model robustness is illustrated for example by the existence of competitions evaluating the progress of robustness tools, namely in the case of neural networks (NNs) but also by efforts towards robustness certification. More recently, robustness tools have also been used for computing rigorous explanations of ML models. In contrast with the observed successes of robustness, this paper uncovers some limitations with existing definitions of robustness, both global and local, but also with efforts towards robustness certification. The paper also investigates uses of adversarial examples besides those related with robustness.

Refutation of Shapley Values for XAI -- Additional Evidence

Recent work demonstrated the inadequacy of Shapley values for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Although to disprove a theory a single counterexample suffices, a possible criticism of earlier work is that the focus was solely on Boolean classifiers. To address such possible criticism, this paper demonstrates the inadequacy of Shapley values for families of classifiers where features are not boolean, but also for families of classifiers for which multiple classes can be picked. Furthermore, the paper shows that the features changed in any minimal $l_0$ distance adversarial examples do not include irrelevant features, thus offering further arguments regarding the inadequacy of Shapley values for XAI.

A Refutation of Shapley Values for Explainability

Recent work demonstrated the existence of Boolean functions for which Shapley values provide misleading information about the relative importance of features in rule-based explanations. Such misleading information was broadly categorized into a number of possible issues. Each of those issues relates with features being relevant or irrelevant for a prediction, and all are significant regarding the inadequacy of Shapley values for rule-based explainability. This earlier work devised a brute-force approach to identify Boolean functions, defined on small numbers of features, and also associated instances, which displayed such inadequacy-revealing issues, and so served as evidence to the inadequacy of Shapley values for rule-based explainability. However, an outstanding question is how frequently such inadequacy-revealing issues can occur for Boolean functions with arbitrary large numbers of features. It is plain that a brute-force approach would be unlikely to provide insights on how to tackle this question. This paper answers the above question by proving that, for any number of features, there exist Boolean functions that exhibit one or more inadequacy-revealing issues, thereby contributing decisive arguments against the use of Shapley values as the theoretical underpinning of feature-attribution methods in explainability.

On Logic-Based Explainability with Partially Specified Inputs

In the practical deployment of machine learning (ML) models, missing data represents a recurring challenge. Missing data is often addressed when training ML models. But missing data also needs to be addressed when deciding predictions and when explaining those predictions. Missing data represents an opportunity to partially specify the inputs of the prediction to be explained. This paper studies the computation of logic-based explanations in the presence of partially specified inputs. The paper shows that most of the algorithms proposed in recent years for computing logic-based explanations can be generalized for computing explanations given the partially specified inputs. One related result is that the complexity of computing logic-based explanations remains unchanged. A similar result is proved in the case of logic-based explainability subject to input constraints. Furthermore, the proposed solution for computing explanations given partially specified inputs is applied to classifiers obtained from well-known public datasets, thereby illustrating a number of novel explainability use cases.

Explainability is NOT a Game

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding complex machine learning (ML) models. One of the hallmarks of XAI are measures of relative feature importance, which are theoretically justified through the use of Shapley values. This paper builds on recent work and offers a simple argument for why Shapley values can provide misleading measures of relative feature importance, by assigning more importance to features that are irrelevant for a prediction, and assigning less importance to features that are relevant for a prediction. The significance of these results is that they effectively challenge the many proposed uses of measures of relative feature importance in a fast-growing range of high-stakes application domains.

Delivering Inflated Explanations

In the quest for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) one of the questions that frequently arises given a decision made by an AI system is, ``why was the decision made in this way?'' Formal approaches to explainability build a formal model of the AI system and use this to reason about the properties of the system. Given a set of feature values for an instance to be explained, and a resulting decision, a formal abductive explanation is a set of features, such that if they take the given value will always lead to the same decision. This explanation is useful, it shows that only some features were used in making the final decision. But it is narrow, it only shows that if the selected features take their given values the decision is unchanged. It's possible that some features may change values and still lead to the same decision. In this paper we formally define inflated explanations which is a set of features, and for each feature of set of values (always including the value of the instance being explained), such that the decision will remain unchanged. Inflated explanations are more informative than abductive explanations since e.g they allow us to see if the exact value of a feature is important, or it could be any nearby value. Overall they allow us to better understand the role of each feature in the decision. We show that we can compute inflated explanations for not that much greater cost than abductive explanations, and that we can extend duality results for abductive explanations also to inflated explanations.

From Robustness to Explainability and Back Again

In contrast with ad-hoc methods for eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), formal explainability offers important guarantees of rigor. However, formal explainability is hindered by poor scalability for some families of classifiers, the most significant being neural networks. As a result, there are concerns as to whether formal explainability might serve to complement other approaches in delivering trustworthy AI. This paper addresses the limitation of scalability of formal explainability, and proposes novel algorithms for computing formal explanations. The novel algorithm computes explanations by answering instead a number of robustness queries, and such that the number of such queries is at most linear on the number of features. Consequently, the proposed algorithm establishes a direct relationship between the practical complexity of formal explainability and that of robustness. More importantly, the paper generalizes the definition of formal explanation, thereby allowing the use of robustness tools that are based on different distance norms, and also by reasoning in terms of some target degree of robustness. The experiments validate the practical efficiency of the proposed approach.

The Inadequacy of Shapley Values for Explainability

This paper develops a rigorous argument for why the use of Shapley values in explainable AI (XAI) will necessarily yield provably misleading information about the relative importance of features for predictions. Concretely, this paper demonstrates that there exist classifiers, and associated predictions, for which the relative importance of features determined by the Shapley values will incorrectly assign more importance to features that are provably irrelevant for the prediction, and less importance to features that are provably relevant for the prediction. The paper also argues that, given recent complexity results, the existence of efficient algorithms for the computation of rigorous feature attribution values in the case of some restricted classes of classifiers should be deemed unlikely at best.

On Computing Probabilistic Abductive Explanations

The most widely studied explainable AI (XAI) approaches are unsound. This is the case with well-known model-agnostic explanation approaches, and it is also the case with approaches based on saliency maps. One solution is to consider intrinsic interpretability, which does not exhibit the drawback of unsoundness. Unfortunately, intrinsic interpretability can display unwieldy explanation redundancy. Formal explainability represents the alternative to these non-rigorous approaches, with one example being PI-explanations. Unfortunately, PI-explanations also exhibit important drawbacks, the most visible of which is arguably their size. Recently, it has been observed that the (absolute) rigor of PI-explanations can be traded off for a smaller explanation size, by computing the so-called relevant sets. Given some positive {\delta}, a set S of features is {\delta}-relevant if, when the features in S are fixed, the probability of getting the target class exceeds {\delta}. However, even for very simple classifiers, the complexity of computing relevant sets of features is prohibitive, with the decision problem being NPPP-complete for circuit-based classifiers. In contrast with earlier negative results, this paper investigates practical approaches for computing relevant sets for a number of widely used classifiers that include Decision Trees (DTs), Naive Bayes Classifiers (NBCs), and several families of classifiers obtained from propositional languages. Moreover, the paper shows that, in practice, and for these families of classifiers, relevant sets are easy to compute. Furthermore, the experiments confirm that succinct sets of relevant features can be obtained for the families of classifiers considered.