From Robustness to Explainability and Back Again

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03048v2
• Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 06:58:33 GMT
• Title: From Robustness to Explainability and Back Again
• Authors: Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva
• Abstract summary: The paper addresses the limitation of scalability of formal explainability, and proposes novel algorithms for computing formal explanations. The proposed 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. The experiments validate the practical efficiency of the proposed approach.
• Score: 0.685316573653194
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Efficient Contrastive Explanations on Demand [7.109897082275965]
  This paper proposes novel algorithms to compute the so-called contrastive explanations for machine learning models. The paper also proposes novel algorithms for listing explanations and finding smallest contrastive explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T08:24:10Z)
• The Foundations of Tokenization: Statistical and Computational Concerns [51.370165245628975]
  Tokenization is a critical step in the NLP pipeline. Despite its recognized importance as a standard representation method in NLP, the theoretical underpinnings of tokenization are not yet fully understood. The present paper contributes to addressing this theoretical gap by proposing a unified formal framework for representing and analyzing tokenizer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T11:12:28Z)
• Rigorous Probabilistic Guarantees for Robust Counterfactual Explanations [80.86128012438834]
  We show for the first time that computing the robustness of counterfactuals with respect to plausible model shifts is NP-complete. We propose a novel probabilistic approach which is able to provide tight estimates of robustness with strong guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T09:13:11Z)
• Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity [18.126159829450028]
  We show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. We introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T11:38:58Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Towards Formal Approximated Minimal Explanations of Neural Networks [0.0]
  Deep neural networks (DNNs) are now being used in numerous domains. DNNs are "black-boxes", and cannot be interpreted by humans. We propose an efficient, verification-based method for finding minimal explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-25T11:06:37Z)
• Don't Explain Noise: Robust Counterfactuals for Randomized Ensembles [50.81061839052459]
  We formalize the generation of robust counterfactual explanations as a probabilistic problem. We show the link between the robustness of ensemble models and the robustness of base learners. Our method achieves high robustness with only a small increase in the distance from counterfactual explanations to their initial observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-27T17:28:54Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• How Much Can I Trust You? -- Quantifying Uncertainties in Explaining Neural Networks [19.648814035399013]
  Explainable AI (XAI) aims to provide interpretations for predictions made by learning machines, such as deep neural networks. We propose a new framework that allows to convert any arbitrary explanation method for neural networks into an explanation method for Bayesian neural networks. We demonstrate the effectiveness and usefulness of our approach extensively in various experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-16T08:54:42Z)
• From Checking to Inference: Actual Causality Computations as Optimization Problems [79.87179017975235]
  We present a novel approach to formulate different notions of causal reasoning, over binary acyclic models, as optimization problems. We show that both notions are efficiently automated. Using models with more than $8000$ variables, checking is computed in a matter of seconds, with MaxSAT outperforming ILP in many cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T10:56:52Z)
• Convex Density Constraints for Computing Plausible Counterfactual Explanations [8.132423340684568]
  Counterfactual explanations are considered as one of the most popular techniques to explain a specific decision of a model. We build upon recent work and propose and study a formal definition of plausible counterfactual explanations. In particular, we investigate how to use density estimators for enforcing plausibility and feasibility of counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T09:23:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.