Alban Grastien

Romain Xu-Darme, Aymeric Varasse, Alban Grastien et al.

In the field of explainable AI, a vibrant effort is dedicated to the design of self-explainable models, as a more principled alternative to post-hoc methods that attempt to explain the decisions after a model opaquely makes them. However, this productive line of research suffers from common downsides: lack of reproducibility, unfeasible comparison, diverging standards. In this paper, we propose CaBRNet, an open-source, modular, backward-compatible framework for Case-Based Reasoning Networks: https://github.com/aiser-team/cabrnet.

Michele Alberti, François Bobot, Julien Girard-Satabin et al.

The formal specification and verification of machine learning programs saw remarkable progress in less than a decade, leading to a profusion of tools. However, diversity may lead to fragmentation, resulting in tools that are difficult to compare, except for very specific benchmarks. Furthermore, this progress is heavily geared towards the specification and verification of a certain class of property, that is, local robustness properties. But while provers are becoming more and more efficient at solving local robustness properties, even slightly more complex properties, involving multiple neural networks for example, cannot be expressed in the input languages of winners of the International Competition of Verification of Neural Networks VNN-Comp. In this tool paper, we present CAISAR, an open-source platform dedicated to machine learning specification and verification. We present its specification language, suitable for modelling complex properties on neural networks, support vector machines and boosted trees. We show on concrete use-cases how specifications written in this language are automatically translated to queries to state-of-the-art provers, notably by using automated graph editing techniques, making it possible to use their off-the-shelf versions. The artifact to reproduce the paper claims is available at the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15209510

Jules Soria, Zakaria Chihani, Julien Girard-Satabin et al.

Case-based reasoning networks are machine-learning models that make predictions based on similarity between the input and prototypical parts of training samples, called prototypes. Such models are able to explain each decision by pointing to the prototypes that contributed the most to the final outcome. As the explanation is a core part of the prediction, they are often qualified as ``interpretable by design". While promising, we show that such explanations are sometimes misleading, which hampers their usefulness in safety-critical contexts. In particular, several instances may lead to different predictions and yet have the same explanation. Drawing inspiration from the field of formal eXplainable AI (FXAI), we propose Abductive Latent Explanations (ALEs), a formalism to express sufficient conditions on the intermediate (latent) representation of the instance that imply the prediction. Our approach combines the inherent interpretability of case-based reasoning models and the guarantees provided by formal XAI. We propose a solver-free and scalable algorithm for generating ALEs based on three distinct paradigms, compare them, and present the feasibility of our approach on diverse datasets for both standard and fine-grained image classification. The associated code can be found at https://github.com/julsoria/ale

Alban Grastien, Patrik Haslum, Sylvie Thiébaux

Model-based diagnosis has been an active research topic in different communities including artificial intelligence, formal methods, and control. This has led to a set of disparate approaches addressing different classes of systems and seeking different forms of diagnoses. In this paper, we resolve such disparities by generalising Reiter's theory to be agnostic to the types of systems and diagnoses considered. This more general theory of diagnosis from first principles defines the minimal diagnosis as the set of preferred diagnosis candidates in a search space of hypotheses. Computing the minimal diagnosis is achieved by exploring the space of diagnosis hypotheses, testing sets of hypotheses for consistency with the system's model and the observation, and generating conflicts that rule out successors and other portions of the search space. Under relatively mild assumptions, our algorithms correctly compute the set of preferred diagnosis candidates. The main difficulty here is that the search space is no longer a powerset as in Reiter's theory, and that, as consequence, many of the implicit properties (such as finiteness of the search space) no longer hold. The notion of conflict also needs to be generalised and we present such a more general notion. We present two implementations of these algorithms, using test solvers based on satisfiability and heuristic search, respectively, which we evaluate on instances from two real world discrete event problems. Despite the greater generality of our theory, these implementations surpass the special purpose algorithms designed for discrete event systems, and enable solving instances that were out of reach of existing diagnosis approaches.

Belona Sonna, Alain Momo, Alban Grastien

This work proposes a formal abductive explanation framework designed to systematically uncover rationales underlying AI predictions of mental health help-seeking within tech workplace settings. By computing rigorous justifications for model outputs, this approach enables principled selection of models tailored to distinct psychiatric profiles and underpins ethically robust recourse planning. Beyond moving past ad-hoc interpretability, we explicitly examine the influence of sensitive attributes such as gender on model decisions, a critical component for fairness assessments. In doing so, it aligns explanatory insights with the complex landscape of workplace mental health, ultimately supporting trustworthy deployment and targeted interventions.

Belona Sonna, Alban Grastien, Claire Benn

Privacy leakage in AI-based decision processes poses significant risks, particularly when sensitive information can be inferred. We propose a formal framework to audit privacy leakage using abductive explanations, which identifies minimal sufficient evidence justifying model decisions and determines whether sensitive information disclosed. Our framework formalizes both individual and system-level leakage, introducing the notion of Potentially Applicable Explanations (PAE) to identify individuals whose outcomes can shield those with sensitive features. This approach provides rigorous privacy guarantees while producing human understandable explanations, a key requirement for auditing tools. Experimental evaluation on the German Credit Dataset illustrates how the importance of sensitive literal in the model decision process affects privacy leakage. Despite computational challenges and simplifying assumptions, our results demonstrate that abductive reasoning enables interpretable privacy auditing, offering a practical pathway to reconcile transparency, model interpretability, and privacy preserving in AI decision-making.

Belona Sonna, Alban Grastien

Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated strong potential in clinical diagnostics, often achieving accuracy comparable to or exceeding that of human experts. A key challenge, however, is that AI reasoning frequently diverges from structured clinical frameworks, limiting trust, interpretability, and adoption. Critical symptoms, pivotal for rapid and accurate decision-making, may be overlooked by AI models even when predictions are correct. Existing post hoc explanation methods provide limited transparency and lack formal guarantees. To address this, we leverage formal abductive explanations, which offer consistent, guaranteed reasoning over minimal sufficient feature sets. This enables a clear understanding of AI decision-making and allows alignment with clinical reasoning. Our approach preserves predictive accuracy while providing clinically actionable insights, establishing a robust framework for trustworthy AI in medical diagnosis.

Belona Sonna, Alban Grastien

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems in high-stakes domains raise concerns about proxy discrimination, unfairness, and explainability. Existing audits often fail to reveal why unfairness arises, particularly when rooted in structural bias. We propose a novel framework using formal abductive explanations to explain proxy discrimination in individual AI decisions. Leveraging background knowledge, our method identifies which features act as unjustified proxies for protected attributes, revealing hidden structural biases. Central to our approach is the concept of aptitude, a task-relevant property independent of group membership, with a mapping function aligning individuals of equivalent aptitude across groups to assess fairness substantively. As a proof of concept, we showcase the framework with examples taken from the German credit dataset, demonstrating its applicability in real-world cases.

Alban Grastien

We prove that persuasion is an NP-complete problem.

Alban Grastien

This document demonstrates that the efficient approach for diagnosis of Petri nets via integer linear programming may be unable to detect a fault even if the system is diagnosable.