mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On Computing Probabilistic Abductive Explanations

arXiv 2212.05990 ↗First posted 12 Dec 2022cs.AI cs.LGcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 105 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2022.

Builds on

37 of 105 references.

References · 37

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  3. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
  4. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
  5. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,156
  6. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
  7. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  8. 2017Methods for Interpreting and Understanding Deep Neural Networkscited by 345
  9. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 333
  10. 2018Abduction-Based Explanations for Machine Learning Modelscited by 160
  11. 2017PMLB: A Large Benchmark Suite for Machine Learning Evaluation and Comparisoncited by 140
  12. 2018A Symbolic Approach to Explaining Bayesian Network Classifierscited by 131
25 more
  1. 2019"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanationscited by 111
  2. 2019Towards Explainable Artificial Intelligencecited by 106
  3. 2020On The Reasons Behind Decisionscited by 100
  4. 2019When Explanations Lie: Why Many Modified BP Attributions Failcited by 92
  5. 2020Explaining Naive Bayes and Other Linear Classifiers with Polynomial Time and Delaycited by 57
  6. 2021On Explaining Random Forests with SATcited by 57
  7. 2021On Guaranteed Optimal Robust Explanations for NLP Modelscited by 54
  8. 2020On Explaining Decision Treescited by 49
  9. 2022On Tackling Explanation Redundancy in Decision Treescited by 44
  10. 2021On the Computational Intelligibility of Boolean Classifierscited by 40
  11. 2021SAT-Based Rigorous Explanations for Decision Listscited by 40
  12. 2021Explanations for Monotonic Classifierscited by 39
  13. 2019Can I Trust the Explainer? Verifying Post-hoc Explanatory Methodscited by 38
  14. 2021On Efficiently Explaining Graph-Based Classifierscited by 37
  15. 2022On Computing Probabilistic Explanations for Decision Treescited by 35
  16. 2022ASTERYX : A model-Agnostic SaT-basEd appRoach for sYmbolic and score-based eXplanationscited by 26
  17. 2021Probabilistic Sufficient Explanationscited by 24
  18. 2022Eliminating The Impossible, Whatever Remains Must Be Truecited by 23
  19. 2019How to Manipulate CNNs to Make Them Lie: the GradCAM Casecited by 12
  20. 2021Efficient Explanations With Relevant Setscited by 12
  21. 2020A Formal Approach to Explainabilitycited by 9
  22. 2022Provably Precise, Succinct and Efficient Explanations for Decision Treescited by 8
  23. 2022On Computing Relevant Features for Explaining NBCscited by 5
  24. 2018A Faster FPTAS for #Knapsackcited by 2
  25. 2022On Deciding Feature Membership in Explanations of SDD & Related Classifierscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 6; 2024: 4; 2025: 6; 2026: 2.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area: