Explaining Decisions in ML Models: a Parameterized Complexity Analysis
0
🔮
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the computational complexity of explaining decisions made by machine learning (ML) models.
- It provides a parameterized complexity analysis to understand the tractability of generating explanations for model predictions.
- The researchers investigate different types of explanations, such as global and local, and analyze their inherent complexity.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the challenge of explaining how machine learning models make their decisions. This is an important issue, as these models are increasingly being used in high-stakes applications like healthcare and finance, where it's crucial to understand why they reach certain conclusions.
The researchers take a formal approach to explaining ML model decisions by analyzing the computational complexity involved. They look at different kinds of explanations, such as global explanations that describe the overall behavior of a model and local explanations that focus on individual predictions.
The key insight is that the complexity of generating these explanations can vary significantly. Some types of explanations may be relatively easy to compute, while others could be much more difficult, potentially making them impractical in real-world applications. By understanding these complexity tradeoffs, the researchers hope to inform the development of more efficient and effective explanation methods for ML models.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by introducing the problem of explaining the decisions made by machine learning models. The researchers highlight the importance of this task, as ML models are increasingly being used in high-stakes applications where accountability and transparency are crucial.
To analyze the complexity of generating explanations, the authors take a parameterized complexity approach. This involves identifying key parameters that may influence the computational complexity of the explanation task, such as the size of the input data, the complexity of the model, or the desired properties of the explanation.
The researchers consider two main types of explanations: global explanations, which describe the overall behavior of the model, and local explanations, which focus on individual predictions. They then provide a detailed complexity analysis for each type of explanation, considering factors like the size of the model, the number of features, and the desired form of the explanation.
The results show that the complexity of generating explanations can vary significantly depending on the specific requirements. For example, computing a global explanation that satisfies certain optimality criteria may be computationally intractable, while generating a local explanation that satisfies distance-based constraints may be more feasible.
The paper also discusses the privacy implications of generating explanations and explores methods for deriving optimal explanations for deep neural networks.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous and formal analysis of the computational complexity involved in generating explanations for machine learning models. This is a valuable contribution to the field of interpretable and explainable AI, as it helps to identify the inherent tradeoffs and limitations of different explanation approaches.
One key strength of the paper is its consideration of multiple types of explanations, including both global and local perspectives. This allows the researchers to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity landscape, rather than focusing on a single explanation method.
However, the paper does not address some practical considerations that may influence the feasibility of generating explanations in real-world settings. For example, it does not discuss the impact of missing or noisy data, the availability of computational resources, or the specific needs and constraints of different application domains.
Additionally, while the paper provides a solid theoretical foundation, it would be helpful to see more empirical validation of the complexity results, such as experiments with real-world ML models and data. This could help to bridge the gap between the theoretical analysis and the practical challenges of implementing explainable AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper offers a rigorous analysis of the computational complexity involved in generating explanations for machine learning models. By considering different types of explanations and the key parameters that influence their complexity, the researchers provide valuable insights into the inherent tradeoffs and limitations of explainable AI.
The findings have important implications for the design and deployment of interpretable ML systems, as they can help guide the development of more efficient and practical explanation methods. However, further research is needed to fully address the practical challenges of implementing explainable AI in real-world applications.
Overall, this paper contributes to the growing body of work on interpretable and explainable machine learning, offering a solid theoretical foundation and opening up new avenues for future research in this critical area.
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
🔮
0
Explaining Decisions in ML Models: a Parameterized Complexity Analysis
Sebastian Ordyniak, Giacomo Paesani, Mateusz Rychlicki, Stefan Szeider
This paper presents a comprehensive theoretical investigation into the parameterized complexity of explanation problems in various machine learning (ML) models. Contrary to the prevalent black-box perception, our study focuses on models with transparent internal mechanisms. We address two principal types of explanation problems: abductive and contrastive, both in their local and global variants. Our analysis encompasses diverse ML models, including Decision Trees, Decision Sets, Decision Lists, Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams, Random Forests, and Boolean Circuits, and ensembles thereof, each offering unique explanatory challenges. This research fills a significant gap in explainable AI (XAI) by providing a foundational understanding of the complexities of generating explanations for these models. This work provides insights vital for further research in the domain of XAI, contributing to the broader discourse on the necessity of transparency and accountability in AI systems.
Read more7/23/2024
📊
0
Even-if Explanations: Formal Foundations, Priorities and Complexity
Gianvincenzo Alfano, Sergio Greco, Domenico Mandaglio, Francesco Parisi, Reza Shahbazian, Irina Trubitsyna
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.
Read more5/24/2024
0
Local vs. Global Interpretability: A Computational Complexity Perspective
Shahaf Bassan, Guy Amir, Guy Katz
The local and global interpretability of various ML models has been studied extensively in recent years. However, despite significant progress in the field, many known results remain informal or lack sufficient mathematical rigor. We propose a framework for bridging this gap, by using computational complexity theory to assess local and global perspectives of interpreting ML models. We begin by proposing proofs for two novel insights that are essential for our analysis: (1) a duality between local and global forms of explanations; and (2) the inherent uniqueness of certain global explanation forms. We then use these insights to evaluate the complexity of computing explanations, across three model types representing the extremes of the interpretability spectrum: (1) linear models; (2) decision trees; and (3) neural networks. Our findings offer insights into both the local and global interpretability of these models. For instance, under standard complexity assumptions such as P != NP, we prove that selecting global sufficient subsets in linear models is computationally harder than selecting local subsets. Interestingly, with neural networks and decision trees, the opposite is true: it is harder to carry out this task locally than globally. We believe that our findings demonstrate how examining explainability through a computational complexity lens can help us develop a more rigorous grasp of the inherent interpretability of ML models.
Read more6/10/2024
🔍
0
Distance-Restricted Explanations: Theoretical Underpinnings & Efficient Implementation
Yacine Izza, Xuanxiang Huang, Antonio Morgado, Jordi Planes, Alexey Ignatiev, Joao Marques-Silva
The uses of machine learning (ML) have snowballed in recent years. In many cases, ML models are highly complex, and their operation is beyond the understanding of human decision-makers. Nevertheless, some uses of ML models involve high-stakes and safety-critical applications. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding the operation of such complex ML models, thus eliciting trust in their operation. Unfortunately, the majority of past XAI work is based on informal approaches, that offer no guarantees of rigor. Unsurprisingly, there exists comprehensive experimental and theoretical evidence confirming that informal methods of XAI can provide human-decision makers with erroneous information. Logic-based XAI represents a rigorous approach to explainability; it is model-based and offers the strongest guarantees of rigor of computed explanations. However, a well-known drawback of logic-based XAI is the complexity of logic reasoning, especially for highly complex ML models. Recent work proposed distance-restricted explanations, i.e. explanations that are rigorous provided the distance to a given input is small enough. Distance-restricted explainability is tightly related with adversarial robustness, and it has been shown to scale for moderately complex ML models, but the number of inputs still represents a key limiting factor. This paper investigates novel algorithms for scaling up the performance of logic-based explainers when computing and enumerating ML model explanations with a large number of inputs.
Read more5/15/2024