Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity
2401.10938
0
0
📊
Abstract
EXplainable AI has received significant attention in recent years. Machine learning models often operate as black boxes, lacking explainability and transparency while supporting decision-making processes. Local post-hoc explainability queries attempt to answer why individual inputs are classified in a certain way by a given model. While there has been important work on counterfactual explanations, less attention has been devoted to semifactual ones. In this paper, we focus on local post-hoc explainability queries within the semifactual `even-if' thinking and their computational complexity among different classes of models, and show that both linear and tree-based models are strictly more interpretable than neural networks. After this, we introduce a preference-based framework that enables users to personalize explanations based on their preferences, both in the case of semifactuals and counterfactuals, enhancing interpretability and user-centricity. Finally, we explore the complexity of several interpretability problems in the proposed preference-based framework and provide algorithms for polynomial cases.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper discusses the formal foundations of counterfactual and semifactual explanations in the context of abstract argumentation.
- It explores how these types of explanations can be used to provide insights into the reasoning behind decisions made by black-box machine learning models.
- The research builds on previous work in the areas of counterfactual explanations, causality-aware local interpretable model-agnostic explanations, and even-ifs from if-onlys.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how we can better understand the reasoning behind decisions made by complex machine learning models that are often treated as "black boxes." It focuses on two specific types of explanations: counterfactual and semifactual.
Counterfactual explanations answer the question "What would have to be different for the model to have made a different decision?" For example, "If the patient's blood pressure was lower, the model would have recommended a different treatment."
Semifactual explanations answer the question "What small changes could have led to a different decision?" For example, "If the patient's blood pressure was just slightly lower, the model would have recommended a different treatment."
By studying these types of explanations in the context of abstract argumentation (a way of modeling logical reasoning), the researchers aim to provide a formal foundation for using counterfactual and semifactual explanations to better understand and interpret the decisions of complex machine learning models. This could lead to more transparent and accountable AI systems that are easier for humans to understand and trust.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a formal framework for modeling counterfactual and semifactual explanations in the context of abstract argumentation. The authors define a novel semantics for these types of explanations and prove several theoretical properties, such as the existence of minimal explanations.
Specifically, the researchers introduce the concept of counterfactual attacks and semifactual attacks, which represent the relationships between arguments in an abstract argumentation system. These attacks capture the idea of "what-if" scenarios and how small changes to the arguments could lead to different conclusions.
The authors also define the notions of counterfactual admissibility and semifactual admissibility, which formalize the conditions under which a set of arguments can be considered a valid explanation for a given decision. They prove that there always exists a unique, minimal set of counterfactual and semifactual explanations.
The paper includes several illustrative examples and a comparison to related work, such as locally minimal probabilistic explanations and causality-aware local interpretable model-agnostic explanations.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous formal foundation for counterfactual and semifactual explanations in the context of abstract argumentation, which is a valuable contribution to the field of interpretable machine learning. The authors' definition of counterfactual and semifactual attacks, and the associated notions of admissibility, are intuitive and well-grounded in the existing literature.
One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses primarily on the theoretical aspects and does not include a detailed empirical evaluation of the proposed framework. While the authors mention potential applications to black-box machine learning models, the practical implementation and effectiveness of their approach in real-world scenarios are not fully explored.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential challenges and limitations of using counterfactual and semifactual explanations, such as the difficulty of identifying the relevant features to change or the potential for these explanations to be misleading or incomplete. Further research may be needed to better understand the practical implications and potential pitfalls of these types of explanations.
Conclusion
This paper presents a formal framework for modeling counterfactual and semifactual explanations in the context of abstract argumentation. By defining the concepts of counterfactual and semifactual attacks, as well as the associated notions of admissibility, the researchers have laid the groundwork for using these types of explanations to better understand the reasoning behind decisions made by complex machine learning models.
While the theoretical aspects of the research are sound, the practical application and effectiveness of the proposed approach require further investigation. Nonetheless, this work contributes to the growing field of interpretable and accountable AI, which is crucial for building trust and transparency in machine learning systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🎯
Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Francesco Parisi, Irina Trubitsyna
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Formal Argumentation have received significant attention in recent years. Argumentation-based systems often lack explainability while supporting decision-making processes. Counterfactual and semifactual explanations are interpretability techniques that provide insights into the outcome of a model by generating alternative hypothetical instances. While there has been important work on counterfactual and semifactual explanations for Machine Learning models, less attention has been devoted to these kinds of problems in argumentation. In this paper, we explore counterfactual and semifactual reasoning in abstract Argumentation Framework. We investigate the computational complexity of counterfactual- and semifactual-based reasoning problems, showing that they are generally harder than classical argumentation problems such as credulous and skeptical acceptance. Finally, we show that counterfactual and semifactual queries can be encoded in weak-constrained Argumentation Framework, and provide a computational strategy through ASP solvers.
5/8/2024
Even-Ifs From If-Onlys: Are the Best Semi-Factual Explanations Found Using Counterfactuals As Guides?
Saugat Aryal, Mark T. Keane
0
0
Recently, counterfactuals using if-only explanations have become very popular in eXplainable AI (XAI), as they describe which changes to feature-inputs of a black-box AI system result in changes to a (usually negative) decision-outcome. Even more recently, semi-factuals using even-if explanations have gained more attention. They elucidate the feature-input changes that do not change the decision-outcome of the AI system, with a potential to suggest more beneficial recourses. Some semi-factual methods use counterfactuals to the query-instance to guide semi-factual production (so-called counterfactual-guided methods), whereas others do not (so-called counterfactual-free methods). In this work, we perform comprehensive tests of 8 semi-factual methods on 7 datasets using 5 key metrics, to determine whether counterfactual guidance is necessary to find the best semi-factuals. The results of these tests suggests not, but rather that computing other aspects of the decision space lead to better semi-factual XAI.
4/26/2024
🗣️
Causality-Aware Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations
Martina Cinquini, Riccardo Guidotti
0
0
A main drawback of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) approaches is the feature independence assumption, hindering the study of potential variable dependencies. This leads to approximating black box behaviors by analyzing the effects on randomly generated feature values that may rarely occur in the original samples. This paper addresses this issue by integrating causal knowledge in an XAI method to enhance transparency and enable users to assess the quality of the generated explanations. Specifically, we propose a novel extension to a widely used local and model-agnostic explainer, which encodes explicit causal relationships within the data surrounding the instance being explained. Extensive experiments show that our approach overcomes the original method in terms of faithfully replicating the black-box model's mechanism and the consistency and reliability of the generated explanations.
4/16/2024
🔮
Counterfactual Explanations of Black-box Machine Learning Models using Causal Discovery with Applications to Credit Rating
Daisuke Takahashi, Shohei Shimizu, Takuma Tanaka
0
0
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has helped elucidate the internal mechanisms of machine learning algorithms, bolstering their reliability by demonstrating the basis of their predictions. Several XAI models consider causal relationships to explain models by examining the input-output relationships of prediction models and the dependencies between features. The majority of these models have been based their explanations on counterfactual probabilities, assuming that the causal graph is known. However, this assumption complicates the application of such models to real data, given that the causal relationships between features are unknown in most cases. Thus, this study proposed a novel XAI framework that relaxed the constraint that the causal graph is known. This framework leveraged counterfactual probabilities and additional prior information on causal structure, facilitating the integration of a causal graph estimated through causal discovery methods and a black-box classification model. Furthermore, explanatory scores were estimated based on counterfactual probabilities. Numerical experiments conducted employing artificial data confirmed the possibility of estimating the explanatory score more accurately than in the absence of a causal graph. Finally, as an application to real data, we constructed a classification model of credit ratings assigned by Shiga Bank, Shiga prefecture, Japan. We demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method in cases where the causal graph is unknown.
4/30/2024