Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Scoring Rules in Voting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12927v2
• Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 10:05:54 GMT
• Title: Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Scoring Rules in Voting
• Authors: Clément Contet, Umberto Grandi, Jérôme Mengin,
• Abstract summary: We design algorithms for computing abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules. For the Borda rule, we find a lower bound on the size of the smallest abductive explanations. We conduct simulations to identify correlations between properties of preference profiles and the size of their smallest abductive explanations.
• Score: 5.928530455750507
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: We view voting rules as classifiers that assign a winner (a class) to a profile of voters' preferences (an instance). We propose to apply techniques from formal explainability, most notably abductive and contrastive explanations, to identify minimal subsets of a preference profile that either imply the current winner or explain why a different candidate was not elected. Formal explanations turn out to have strong connections with classical problems studied in computational social choice such as bribery, possible and necessary winner identification, and preference learning. We design algorithms for computing abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules. For the Borda rule, we find a lower bound on the size of the smallest abductive explanations, and we conduct simulations to identify correlations between properties of preference profiles and the size of their smallest abductive explanations.

Related papers

• DeepVoting: Learning Voting Rules with Tailored Embeddings [13.037431161285971]
  We recast the problem of designing a good voting rule into one of learning probabilistic versions of voting rules. We show that embeddings of preference profiles derived from the social choice literature allows us to learn existing voting rules more efficiently. We also show that rules learned using embeddings can be tweaked to create novel voting rules with improved axiomatic properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T17:15:20Z)
• Clash of the Explainers: Argumentation for Context-Appropriate Explanations [6.8285745209093145]
  There is no single approach that is best suited for a given context. For AI explainability to be effective, explanations and how they are presented needs to be oriented towards the stakeholder receiving the explanation. We propose a modular reasoning system consisting of a given mental model of the relevant stakeholder, a reasoner component that solves the argumentation problem generated by a multi-explainer component, and an AI model that is to be explained suitably to the stakeholder of interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T09:52:30Z)
• Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought Prompting [80.9896041501715]
  Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T18:02:34Z)
• Explaining $\mathcal{ELH}$ Concept Descriptions through Counterfactual Reasoning [3.5323691899538128]
  An intrinsically transparent way to do classification is by using concepts in description logics. One solution is to employ counterfactuals to answer the question, How must feature values be changed to obtain a different classification?''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-12T16:06:06Z)
• Search Methods for Sufficient, Socially-Aligned Feature Importance Explanations with In-Distribution Counterfactuals [72.00815192668193]
  Feature importance (FI) estimates are a popular form of explanation, and they are commonly created and evaluated by computing the change in model confidence caused by removing certain input features at test time. We study several under-explored dimensions of FI-based explanations, providing conceptual and empirical improvements for this form of explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T20:36:48Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• 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)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)
• SCOUT: Self-aware Discriminant Counterfactual Explanations [78.79534272979305]
  The problem of counterfactual visual explanations is considered. A new family of discriminant explanations is introduced. The resulting counterfactual explanations are optimization free and thus much faster than previous methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-16T17:05:49Z)

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.