On the Connection between Game-Theoretic Feature Attributions and Counterfactual Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06941v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:57:21 GMT
• Title: On the Connection between Game-Theoretic Feature Attributions and Counterfactual Explanations
• Authors: Emanuele Albini, Shubham Sharma, Saumitra Mishra, Danial Dervovic, Daniele Magazzeni
• Abstract summary: Two of the most popular explanations are feature attributions, and counterfactual explanations. This work establishes a clear theoretical connection between game-theoretic feature attributions and counterfactuals explanations. We shed light on the limitations of naively using counterfactual explanations to provide feature importances.
• Score: 14.552505966070358
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has received widespread interest in recent years, and two of the most popular types of explanations are feature attributions, and counterfactual explanations. These classes of approaches have been largely studied independently and the few attempts at reconciling them have been primarily empirical. This work establishes a clear theoretical connection between game-theoretic feature attributions, focusing on but not limited to SHAP, and counterfactuals explanations. After motivating operative changes to Shapley values based feature attributions and counterfactual explanations, we prove that, under conditions, they are in fact equivalent. We then extend the equivalency result to game-theoretic solution concepts beyond Shapley values. Moreover, through the analysis of the conditions of such equivalence, we shed light on the limitations of naively using counterfactual explanations to provide feature importances. Experiments on three datasets quantitatively show the difference in explanations at every stage of the connection between the two approaches and corroborate the theoretical findings.

Related papers

• Class-wise Activation Unravelling the Engima of Deep Double Descent [0.0]
  Double descent presents a counter-intuitive aspect within the machine learning domain. In this study, we revisited the phenomenon of double descent and discussed the conditions of its occurrence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T12:07:48Z)
• Axiomatic Aggregations of Abductive Explanations [13.277544022717404]
  Recent criticisms of robustness of post hoc model approximation explanation methods have led to rise of model-precise abductive explanations. In such cases, providing a single abductive explanation can be insufficient; on the other hand, providing all valid abductive explanations can be incomprehensible due to their size. We propose three aggregation methods: two based on power indices from cooperative game theory and a third based on a well-known measure of causal strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T04:06:10Z)
• Explaining Explainability: Towards Deeper Actionable Insights into Deep Learning through Second-order Explainability [70.60433013657693]
  Second-order explainable AI (SOXAI) was recently proposed to extend explainable AI (XAI) from the instance level to the dataset level. We demonstrate for the first time, via example classification and segmentation cases, that eliminating irrelevant concepts from the training set based on actionable insights from SOXAI can enhance a model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T23:24:01Z)
• On the Joint Interaction of Models, Data, and Features [82.60073661644435]
  We introduce a new tool, the interaction tensor, for empirically analyzing the interaction between data and model through features. Based on these observations, we propose a conceptual framework for feature learning. Under this framework, the expected accuracy for a single hypothesis and agreement for a pair of hypotheses can both be derived in closed-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T21:35:26Z)
• A Theoretical Framework for AI Models Explainability with Application in Biomedicine [3.5742391373143474]
  We propose a novel definition of explanation that is a synthesis of what can be found in the literature. We fit explanations into the properties of faithfulness (i.e., the explanation being a true description of the model's inner workings and decision-making process) and plausibility (i.e., how much the explanation looks convincing to the user)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-29T20:05:26Z)
• Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning [77.83124315634386]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in learning from explanations in prompts. This work aims to better understand the mechanisms by which explanations are used for in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T04:40:47Z)
• REVEL Framework to measure Local Linear Explanations for black-box models: Deep Learning Image Classification case of study [12.49538398746092]
  We propose a procedure called REVEL to evaluate different aspects concerning the quality of explanations with a theoretically coherent development. The experiments have been carried out on image four datasets as benchmark where we show REVEL's descriptive and analytical power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-11T12:15:36Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)
• On the Connections between Counterfactual Explanations and Adversarial Examples [14.494463243702908]
  We make one of the first attempts at formalizing the connections between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples. Our analysis demonstrates that several popular counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods are equivalent. We empirically validate our theoretical findings using extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T08:22:24Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)

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.