Anytime Approximate Formal Feature Attribution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and machine learning (ML) models on the one hand and a number of crucial issues pertaining to them warrant the need for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). A key explainability question is: given this decision was made, what are the input features which contributed to the decision? Although a range of XAI approaches exist to tackle this problem, most of them have significant limitations. Heuristic XAI approaches suffer from the lack of quality guarantees, and often try to approximate Shapley values, which is not the same as explaining which features contribute to a decision. A recent alternative is so-called formal feature attribution (FFA), which defines feature importance as the fraction of formal abductive explanations (AXp's) containing the given feature. This measures feature importance from the view of formally reasoning about the model's behavior. It is challenging to compute FFA using its definition because that involves counting AXp's, although one can approximate it. Based on these results, this paper makes several contributions. First, it gives compelling evidence that computing FFA is intractable, even if the set of contrastive formal explanations (CXp's) is provided, by proving that the problem is #P-hard. Second, by using the duality between AXp's and CXp's, it proposes an efficient heuristic to switch from CXp enumeration to AXp enumeration on-the-fly resulting in an adaptive explanation enumeration algorithm effectively approximating FFA in an anytime fashion. Finally, experimental results obtained on a range of widely used datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed FFA approximation approach in terms of the error of FFA approximation as well as the number of explanations computed and their diversity given a fixed time limit.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2023.
Builds on
19 of 70 references.
References · 19
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
- 2021MedMNIST v2 -- A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classificationcited by 690
- 2018Abduction-Based Explanations for Machine Learning Modelscited by 160
- 2018A Symbolic Approach to Explaining Bayesian Network Classifierscited by 131
- 2020Explaining Naive Bayes and Other Linear Classifiers with Polynomial Time and Delaycited by 57
- 2021On Explaining Random Forests with SATcited by 57
- 2021SAT-Based Rigorous Explanations for Decision Listscited by 40
- 2021Explanations for Monotonic Classifierscited by 39
7 more
- 2022On Computing Probabilistic Explanations for Decision Treescited by 35
- 2021Provably efficient, succinct, and precise explanationscited by 32
- 2023The Inadequacy of Shapley Values for Explainabilitycited by 31
- 2022Feature Necessity & Relevancy in ML Classifier Explanationscited by 23
- 2023Explainability is NOT a Gamecited by 23
- 2023On Formal Feature Attribution and Its Approximationcited by 11
- 2017Recursive Online Enumeration of All Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsetscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.
9 papers.
- 2025SHAP Meets Tensor Networks: Provably Tractable Explanations with Parallelismcited by 8
- 2025Most General Explanations of Tree Ensembles (Extended Version)cited by 7
- 2024Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Futurecited by 2
- 2024SHAP scores fail pervasively even when Lipschitz succeedscited by 2
- 2024Efficient Contrastive Explanations on Demandcited by 1
- 2026Concept-Based Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Behaviors of Vision Modelscited by 1
- 2025Rigorous Feature Importance Scores based on Shapley Value and Banzhaf Indexcited by 0
- 2025Efficient & Correct Predictive Equivalence for Decision Treescited by 0
- 2026A Formal Framework for the Explanation of Finite Automata Decisionscited by 0
- 2026Concept-Based Abductive and Contrastive Explanations for Behaviors of Vision Models7 May 2026
- 2026A Formal Framework for the Explanation of Finite Automata Decisions12 Feb 2026
- 2025SHAP Meets Tensor Networks: Provably Tractable Explanations with Parallelism24 Oct 2025
- 2025Efficient & Correct Predictive Equivalence for Decision Trees22 Sep 2025
- 2025Rigorous Feature Importance Scores based on Shapley Value and Banzhaf Index16 Aug 2025
- 2025Most General Explanations of Tree Ensembles (Extended Version)16 May 2025
- 2024Efficient Contrastive Explanations on Demand24 Dec 2024
- 2024SHAP scores fail pervasively even when Lipschitz succeeds18 Dec 2024
- 2024Logic-Based Explainability: Past, Present & Future4 Jun 2024