Axiomatic Aggregations of Abductive Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.03131v3
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 17:02:59 GMT
• Title: Axiomatic Aggregations of Abductive Explanations
• Authors: Gagan Biradar, Yacine Izza, Elita Lobo, Vignesh Viswanathan, Yair Zick
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 13.277544022717404
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The recent criticisms of the robustness of post hoc model approximation explanation methods (like LIME and SHAP) have led to the rise of model-precise abductive explanations. For each data point, abductive explanations provide a minimal subset of features that are sufficient to generate the outcome. While theoretically sound and rigorous, abductive explanations suffer from a major issue -- there can be several valid abductive explanations for the same data point. 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. In this work, we solve this issue by aggregating the many possible abductive explanations into feature importance scores. 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. We characterize these three methods axiomatically, showing that each of them uniquely satisfies a set of desirable properties. We also evaluate them on multiple datasets and show that these explanations are robust to the attacks that fool SHAP and LIME.

Related papers

• Counterfactual explainability of black-box prediction models [4.14360329494344]
  We propose a new notion called counterfactual explainability for black-box prediction models. Counterfactual explainability has three key advantages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T16:29:09Z)
• Axiomatic Characterisations of Sample-based Explainers [8.397730500554047]
  We scrutinize explainers that generate feature-based explanations from samples or datasets. We identify the entire family of explainers that satisfy two key properties which are compatible with all the others. We introduce the first (broad family of) explainers that guarantee the existence of explanations and irrefutable global consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T07:10:07Z)
• Selective Explanations [14.312717332216073]
  A machine learning model is trained to predict feature attribution scores with only one inference. Despite their efficiency, amortized explainers can produce inaccurate predictions and misleading explanations. We propose selective explanations, a novel feature attribution method that detects when amortized explainers generate low-quality explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T23:08:31Z)
• On the Connection between Game-Theoretic Feature Attributions and Counterfactual Explanations [14.552505966070358]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T17:57:21Z)
• Abductive Commonsense Reasoning Exploiting Mutually Exclusive Explanations [118.0818807474809]
  Abductive reasoning aims to find plausible explanations for an event. Existing approaches for abductive reasoning in natural language processing often rely on manually generated annotations for supervision. This work proposes an approach for abductive commonsense reasoning that exploits the fact that only a subset of explanations is correct for a given context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:35:10Z)
• Evaluating the Robustness of Interpretability Methods through Explanation Invariance and Equivariance [72.50214227616728]
  Interpretability methods are valuable only if their explanations faithfully describe the explained model. We consider neural networks whose predictions are invariant under a specific symmetry group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T17:59:03Z)
• 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)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• 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)
• ExplanationLP: Abductive Reasoning for Explainable Science Question Answering [4.726777092009554]
  This paper frames question answering as an abductive reasoning problem. We construct plausible explanations for each choice and then selecting the candidate with the best explanation as the final answer. Our system, ExplanationLP, elicits explanations by constructing a weighted graph of relevant facts for each candidate answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-25T14:49:24Z)
• 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.