Xuanxiang Huang

Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

This paper develops a rigorous argument for why the use of Shapley values in explainable AI (XAI) will necessarily yield provably misleading information about the relative importance of features for predictions. Concretely, this paper demonstrates that there exist classifiers, and associated predictions, for which the relative importance of features determined by the Shapley values will incorrectly assign more importance to features that are provably irrelevant for the prediction, and less importance to features that are provably relevant for the prediction. The paper also argues that, given recent complexity results, the existence of efficient algorithms for the computation of rigorous feature attribution values in the case of some restricted classes of classifiers should be deemed unlikely at best.

Joao Marques-Silva, Xuanxiang Huang

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to help human decision-makers in understanding complex machine learning (ML) models. One of the hallmarks of XAI are measures of relative feature importance, which are theoretically justified through the use of Shapley values. This paper builds on recent work and offers a simple argument for why Shapley values can provide misleading measures of relative feature importance, by assigning more importance to features that are irrelevant for a prediction, and assigning less importance to features that are relevant for a prediction. The significance of these results is that they effectively challenge the many proposed uses of measures of relative feature importance in a fast-growing range of high-stakes application domains.

Yacine Izza, Xuanxiang Huang, Alexey Ignatiev et al.

The most widely studied explainable AI (XAI) approaches are unsound. This is the case with well-known model-agnostic explanation approaches, and it is also the case with approaches based on saliency maps. One solution is to consider intrinsic interpretability, which does not exhibit the drawback of unsoundness. Unfortunately, intrinsic interpretability can display unwieldy explanation redundancy. Formal explainability represents the alternative to these non-rigorous approaches, with one example being PI-explanations. Unfortunately, PI-explanations also exhibit important drawbacks, the most visible of which is arguably their size. Recently, it has been observed that the (absolute) rigor of PI-explanations can be traded off for a smaller explanation size, by computing the so-called relevant sets. Given some positive δ, a set S of features is δ-relevant if, when the features in S are fixed, the probability of getting the target class exceeds δ. However, even for very simple classifiers, the complexity of computing relevant sets of features is prohibitive, with the decision problem being NPPP-complete for circuit-based classifiers. In contrast with earlier negative results, this paper investigates practical approaches for computing relevant sets for a number of widely used classifiers that include Decision Trees (DTs), Naive Bayes Classifiers (NBCs), and several families of classifiers obtained from propositional languages. Moreover, the paper shows that, in practice, and for these families of classifiers, relevant sets are easy to compute. Furthermore, the experiments confirm that succinct sets of relevant features can be obtained for the families of classifiers considered.

Xuanxiang Huang, Martin C. Cooper, Antonio Morgado et al.

Given a machine learning (ML) model and a prediction, explanations can be defined as sets of features which are sufficient for the prediction. In some applications, and besides asking for an explanation, it is also critical to understand whether sensitive features can occur in some explanation, or whether a non-interesting feature must occur in all explanations. This paper starts by relating such queries respectively with the problems of relevancy and necessity in logic-based abduction. The paper then proves membership and hardness results for several families of ML classifiers. Afterwards the paper proposes concrete algorithms for two classes of classifiers. The experimental results confirm the scalability of the proposed algorithms.

Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

Formal explainability guarantees the rigor of computed explanations, and so it is paramount in domains where rigor is critical, including those deemed high-risk. Unfortunately, since its inception formal explainability has been hampered by poor scalability. At present, this limitation still holds true for some families of classifiers, the most significant being deep neural networks. This paper addresses the poor scalability of formal explainability and proposes novel efficient algorithms for computing formal explanations. The novel algorithm computes explanations by answering instead a number of robustness queries, and such that the number of such queries is at most linear on the number of features. Consequently, the proposed algorithm establishes a direct relationship between the practical complexity of formal explainability and that of robustness. To achieve the proposed goals, the paper generalizes the definition of formal explanations, thereby allowing the use of robustness tools that are based on different distance norms, and also by reasoning in terms of some target degree of robustness. Preliminary experiments validate the practical efficiency of the proposed approach.

Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

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.

Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

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.

Olivier Letoffe, Xuanxiang Huang, Nicholas Asher et al.

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.

Yacine Izza, Xuanxiang Huang, Antonio Morgado et al.

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.

Olivier Letoffe, Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

The ubiquitous use of Shapley values in eXplainable AI (XAI) has been triggered by the tool SHAP, and as a result are commonly referred to as SHAP scores. Recent work devised examples of machine learning (ML) classifiers for which the computed SHAP scores are thoroughly unsatisfactory, by allowing human decision-makers to be misled. Nevertheless, such examples could be perceived as somewhat artificial, since the selected classes must be interpreted as numeric. Furthermore, it was unclear how general were the issues identified with SHAP scores. This paper answers these criticisms. First, the paper shows that for Boolean classifiers there are arbitrarily many examples for which the SHAP scores must be deemed unsatisfactory. Second, the paper shows that the issues with SHAP scores are also observed in the case of regression models. In addition, the paper studies the class of regression models that respect Lipschitz continuity, a measure of a function's rate of change that finds important recent uses in ML, including model robustness. Concretely, the paper shows that the issues with SHAP scores occur even for regression models that respect Lipschitz continuity. Finally, the paper shows that the same issues are guaranteed to exist for arbitrarily differentiable regression models.

Xuanxiang Huang, Olivier Létoffé, Joao Marques-Silva

Feature attribution methods based on game theory are ubiquitous in the field of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Recent works proposed rigorous feature attribution using logic-based explanations, specifically targeting high-stakes uses of machine learning (ML) models. Typically, such works exploit weak abductive explanation (WAXp) as the characteristic function to assign importance to features. However, one possible downside is that the contribution of non-WAXp sets is neglected. In fact, non-WAXp sets can also convey important information, because of the relationship between formal explanations (XPs) and adversarial examples (AExs). Accordingly, this paper leverages Shapley value and Banzhaf index to devise two novel feature importance scores. We take into account non-WAXp sets when computing feature contribution, and the novel scores quantify how effective each feature is at excluding AExs. Furthermore, the paper identifies properties and studies the computational complexity of the proposed scores.

Joao Marques-Silva, Xuanxiang Huang, Olivier Letoffe

Recent work demonstrated the existence of critical flaws in the current use of Shapley values in explainable AI (XAI), i.e. the so-called SHAP scores. These flaws are significant in that the scores provided to a human decision-maker can be misleading. Although these negative results might appear to indicate that Shapley values ought not be used in XAI, this paper argues otherwise. Concretely, this paper proposes a novel definition of SHAP scores that overcomes existing flaws. Furthermore, the paper outlines a practically efficient solution for the rigorous estimation of the novel SHAP scores. Preliminary experimental results confirm our claims, and further underscore the flaws of the current SHAP scores.

Olivier Letoffe, Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

SHAP scores represent the proposed use of the well-known Shapley values in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Recent work has shown that the exact computation of SHAP scores can produce unsatisfactory results. Concretely, for some ML models, SHAP scores will mislead with respect to relative feature influence. To address these limitations, recently proposed alternatives exploit different axiomatic aggregations, all of which are defined in terms of abductive explanations. However, the proposed axiomatic aggregations are not Shapley values. This paper investigates how SHAP scores can be modified so as to extend axiomatic aggregations to the case of Shapley values in XAI. More importantly, the proposed new definition of SHAP scores avoids all the known cases where unsatisfactory results have been identified. The paper also characterizes the complexity of computing the novel definition of SHAP scores, highlighting families of classifiers for which computing these scores is tractable. Furthermore, the paper proposes modifications to the existing implementations of SHAP scores. These modifications eliminate some of the known limitations of SHAP scores, and have negligible impact in terms of performance.

Xuanxiang Huang, Joao Marques-Silva

When reasoning about explanations of Machine Learning (ML) classifiers, a pertinent query is to decide whether some sensitive features can serve for explaining a given prediction. Recent work showed that the feature membership problem (FMP) is hard for $Σ_2^P$ for a broad class of classifiers. In contrast, this paper shows that for a number of families of classifiers, FMP is in NP. Concretely, the paper proves that any classifier for which an explanation can be computed in polynomial time, then deciding feature membership in an explanation can be decided with one NP oracle call. The paper then proposes propositional encodings for classifiers represented with Sentential Decision Diagrams (SDDs) and for other related propositional languages. The experimental results confirm the practical efficiency of the proposed approach.

Xuanxiang Huang, Yacine Izza, Alexey Ignatiev et al.

Knowledge compilation (KC) languages find a growing number of practical uses, including in Constraint Programming (CP) and in Machine Learning (ML). In most applications, one natural question is how to explain the decisions made by models represented by a KC language. This paper shows that for many of the best known KC languages, well-known classes of explanations can be computed in polynomial time. These classes include deterministic decomposable negation normal form (d-DNNF), and so any KC language that is strictly less succinct than d-DNNF. Furthermore, the paper also investigates the conditions under which polynomial time computation of explanations can be extended to KC languages more succinct than d-DNNF.

Xuanxiang Huang, Yacine Izza, Alexey Ignatiev et al.

Recent work has shown that not only decision trees (DTs) may not be interpretable but also proposed a polynomial-time algorithm for computing one PI-explanation of a DT. This paper shows that for a wide range of classifiers, globally referred to as decision graphs, and which include decision trees and binary decision diagrams, but also their multi-valued variants, there exist polynomial-time algorithms for computing one PI-explanation. In addition, the paper also proposes a polynomial-time algorithm for computing one contrastive explanation. These novel algorithms build on explanation graphs (XpG's). XpG's denote a graph representation that enables both theoretical and practically efficient computation of explanations for decision graphs. Furthermore, the paper proposes a practically efficient solution for the enumeration of explanations, and studies the complexity of deciding whether a given feature is included in some explanation. For the concrete case of decision trees, the paper shows that the set of all contrastive explanations can be enumerated in polynomial time. Finally, the experimental results validate the practical applicability of the algorithms proposed in the paper on a wide range of publicly available benchmarks.