The Sets of Power

Measures of voting power have been the subject of extensive research since the mid 1940s. More recently, similar measures of relative importance have been studied in other domains that include inconsistent knowledge bases, intensity of attacks in argumentation, different problems in the analysis of database management, and explainability. This paper demonstrates that all these examples are instantiations of computing measures of importance for a rather more general problem domain. The paper then shows that the best-known measures of importance can be computed for any reference set whenever one is given a monotonically increasing predicate that partitions the subsets of that reference set. As a consequence, the paper also proves that measures of importance can be devised in several domains, for some of which such measures have not yet been studied nor proposed. Furthermore, the paper highlights several research directions related with computing measures of importance.

From SHAP Scores to Feature Importance Scores

A central goal of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is to assign relative importance to the features of a Machine Learning (ML) model given some prediction. The importance of this task of explainability by feature attribution is illustrated by the ubiquitous recent use of tools such as SHAP and LIME. Unfortunately, the exact computation of feature attributions, using the game-theoretical foundation underlying SHAP and LIME, can yield manifestly unsatisfactory results, that tantamount to reporting misleading relative feature importance. Recent work targeted rigorous feature attribution, by studying axiomatic aggregations of features based on logic-based definitions of explanations by feature selection. This paper shows that there is an essential relationship between feature attribution and a priori voting power, and that those recently proposed axiomatic aggregations represent a few instantiations of the range of power indices studied in the past. Furthermore, it remains unclear how some of the most widely used power indices might be exploited as feature importance scores (FISs), i.e. the use of power indices in XAI, and which of these indices would be the best suited for the purposes of XAI by feature attribution, namely in terms of not producing results that could be deemed as unsatisfactory. This paper proposes novel desirable properties that FISs should exhibit. In addition, the paper also proposes novel FISs exhibiting the proposed properties. Finally, the paper conducts a rigorous analysis of the best-known power indices in terms of the proposed properties.

Distance-Restricted Explanations: Theoretical Underpinnings & Efficient Implementation

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.

On Correcting SHAP Scores

Recent work uncovered examples of classifiers for which SHAP scores yield misleading feature attributions. While such examples might be perceived as suggesting the inadequacy of Shapley values for explainability, this paper shows that the source of the identified shortcomings of SHAP scores resides elsewhere. Concretely, the paper makes the case that the failings of SHAP scores result from the characteristic functions used in earlier works. Furthermore, the paper identifies a number of properties that characteristic functions ought to respect, and proposes several novel characteristic functions, each exhibiting one or more of the desired properties. More importantly, some of the characteristic functions proposed in this paper are guaranteed not to exhibit any of the shortcomings uncovered by earlier work. The paper also investigates the impact of the new characteristic functions on the complexity of computing SHAP scores. Finally, the paper proposes modifications to the tool SHAP to use instead one of our novel characteristic functions, thereby eliminating some of the limitations reported for SHAP scores.

Locally-Minimal Probabilistic Explanations

Formal abductive explanations offer crucial guarantees of rigor and so are of interest in high-stakes uses of machine learning (ML). One drawback of abductive explanations is explanation size, justified by the cognitive limits of human decision-makers. Probabilistic abductive explanations (PAXps) address this limitation, but their theoretical and practical complexity makes their exact computation most often unrealistic. This paper proposes novel efficient algorithms for the computation of locally-minimal PXAps, which offer high-quality approximations of PXAps in practice. The experimental results demonstrate the practical efficiency of the proposed algorithms.

The Pros and Cons of Adversarial Robustness

Robustness is widely regarded as a fundamental problem in the analysis of machine learning (ML) models. Most often robustness equates with deciding the non-existence of adversarial examples, where adversarial examples denote situations where small changes on some inputs cause a change in the prediction. The perceived importance of ML model robustness explains the continued progress observed for most of the last decade. Whereas robustness is often assessed locally, i.e. given some target point in feature space, robustness can also be defined globally, i.e. where any point in feature space can be considered. The importance of ML model robustness is illustrated for example by the existence of competitions evaluating the progress of robustness tools, namely in the case of neural networks (NNs) but also by efforts towards robustness certification. More recently, robustness tools have also been used for computing rigorous explanations of ML models. In contrast with the observed successes of robustness, this paper uncovers some limitations with existing definitions of robustness, both global and local, but also with efforts towards robustness certification. The paper also investigates uses of adversarial examples besides those related with robustness.

Refutation of Shapley Values for XAI -- Additional Evidence

Recent work demonstrated the inadequacy of Shapley values for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Although to disprove a theory a single counterexample suffices, a possible criticism of earlier work is that the focus was solely on Boolean classifiers. To address such possible criticism, this paper demonstrates the inadequacy of Shapley values for families of classifiers where features are not boolean, but also for families of classifiers for which multiple classes can be picked. Furthermore, the paper shows that the features changed in any minimal $l_0$ distance adversarial examples do not include irrelevant features, thus offering further arguments regarding the inadequacy of Shapley values for XAI.

A Refutation of Shapley Values for Explainability

Recent work demonstrated the existence of Boolean functions for which Shapley values provide misleading information about the relative importance of features in rule-based explanations. Such misleading information was broadly categorized into a number of possible issues. Each of those issues relates with features being relevant or irrelevant for a prediction, and all are significant regarding the inadequacy of Shapley values for rule-based explainability. This earlier work devised a brute-force approach to identify Boolean functions, defined on small numbers of features, and also associated instances, which displayed such inadequacy-revealing issues, and so served as evidence to the inadequacy of Shapley values for rule-based explainability. However, an outstanding question is how frequently such inadequacy-revealing issues can occur for Boolean functions with arbitrary large numbers of features. It is plain that a brute-force approach would be unlikely to provide insights on how to tackle this question. This paper answers the above question by proving that, for any number of features, there exist Boolean functions that exhibit one or more inadequacy-revealing issues, thereby contributing decisive arguments against the use of Shapley values as the theoretical underpinning of feature-attribution methods in explainability.

Delivering Inflated Explanations

In the quest for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) one of the questions that frequently arises given a decision made by an AI system is, ``why was the decision made in this way?'' Formal approaches to explainability build a formal model of the AI system and use this to reason about the properties of the system. Given a set of feature values for an instance to be explained, and a resulting decision, a formal abductive explanation is a set of features, such that if they take the given value will always lead to the same decision. This explanation is useful, it shows that only some features were used in making the final decision. But it is narrow, it only shows that if the selected features take their given values the decision is unchanged. It's possible that some features may change values and still lead to the same decision. In this paper we formally define inflated explanations which is a set of features, and for each feature of set of values (always including the value of the instance being explained), such that the decision will remain unchanged. Inflated explanations are more informative than abductive explanations since e.g they allow us to see if the exact value of a feature is important, or it could be any nearby value. Overall they allow us to better understand the role of each feature in the decision. We show that we can compute inflated explanations for not that much greater cost than abductive explanations, and that we can extend duality results for abductive explanations also to inflated explanations.

On Logic-Based Explainability with Partially Specified Inputs

In the practical deployment of machine learning (ML) models, missing data represents a recurring challenge. Missing data is often addressed when training ML models. But missing data also needs to be addressed when deciding predictions and when explaining those predictions. Missing data represents an opportunity to partially specify the inputs of the prediction to be explained. This paper studies the computation of logic-based explanations in the presence of partially specified inputs. The paper shows that most of the algorithms proposed in recent years for computing logic-based explanations can be generalized for computing explanations given the partially specified inputs. One related result is that the complexity of computing logic-based explanations remains unchanged. A similar result is proved in the case of logic-based explainability subject to input constraints. Furthermore, the proposed solution for computing explanations given partially specified inputs is applied to classifiers obtained from well-known public datasets, thereby illustrating a number of novel explainability use cases.