Marzio Di Vece

Marzio Di Vece, Emanuele Agrimi, Samuele Tatullo et al.

Many complex systems - be they financial, natural, or social - are composed of units - such as stocks, neurons, or agents - whose joint activity can be represented as a multivariate time series. An issue of both practical and theoretical importance concerns the possibility of inferring the presence of a static relationship between any two units solely from their dynamic state. The present contribution aims at tackling such an issue within the frame of traditional hypothesis testing: briefly speaking, our suggestion is that of linking any two units if behaving in a sufficiently similar way. To achieve such a goal, we project a multivariate time series onto a signed graph by i) comparing the empirical properties of the former with those expected under a suitable benchmark and ii) linking any two units with a positive (negative) edge in case the corresponding series shares a significantly large number of concordant (discordant) values. To define our benchmarks, we adopt an information-theoretic approach that is rooted into the constrained maximisation of Shannon entropy, a procedure inducing an ensemble of multivariate time series that preserves some of the empirical properties on average, while randomising everything else. We showcase the possible applications of our method by addressing one of the most timely issues in the domain of neurosciences, i.e. that of determining if brain networks are frustrated or not, and, if so, to what extent. As our results suggest, this is indeed the case, with the major contribution to the underlying negative subgraph coming from the subcortical structures (and, to a lesser extent, from the limbic regions). At the mesoscopic level, the minimisation of the Bayesian Information Criterion, instantiated with the Signed Stochastic Block Model, reveals that brain areas gather into modules aligning with the statistical variant of the Relaxed Balance Theory.

Martino Ciaperoni, Marzio Di Vece, Luca Pappalardo et al.

Large-scale foundation models exhibit behavioral shifts: intervention-induced behavioral changes that appear after scaling, fine-tuning, reinforcement learning or in-context learning. While investigating these phenomena have recently received attention, explaining their appearance is still overlooked. Classic explainable AI (XAI) methods can surface failures at a single checkpoint of a model, but they are structurally ill-suited to justify what changed internally across different checkpoints and which explanatory claims are warranted about that change. We take the position that behavioral shifts should be explained comparatively: the core target should be the intervention-induced shift between a reference model and an intervened model, rather than any single model in isolation. To this aim we formulate a Comparative XAI ($Δ$-XAI) framework with a set of desiderata to be taken into account when designing proper explaining methods. To highlight how $Δ$-XAI methods work, we introduce a set of possible pipelines, relate them to the desiderata, and provide a concrete $Δ$-XAI experiment.