# Provably Robust Model-Centric Explanations for Critical Decision-Making

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.13937 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.13937/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Oct 2021.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragile](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.10547/) (2017)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Explanations for Consequential Decisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11190/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We recommend using a model-centric, Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) formalism to obtain useful explanations of trained model behavior, different and complementary to what can be gleaned from LIME and SHAP, popular data-centric explanation tools in Artificial Intelligence (AI). We compare and contrast these methods, and show that data-centric methods may yield brittle explanations of limited practical utility. The model-centric framework, however, can offer actionable insights into risks of using AI models in practice. For critical applications of AI, split-second decision making is best informed by robust explanations that are invariant to properties of data, the capability offered by model-centric frameworks.